“Few things are as shockingly repugnant as reading bold defenses of human slavery written by those who claim the name of Jesus Christ. How could anyone transformed by the gospel advocate human trafficking, captivity, forced labor, and the destruction of families? Some have argued that a Christian vision of gender complementarity will one day seem as horrifying as antebellum slavery views. In this careful scholarly work, Ben Reaoch examines this trajectory hermeneutic as it relates to slavery and to gender. The contemporary generation of Christians should pay close attention to this debate.”

— Russell D. Moore , Dean, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“ Women, Slaves, and the Gender Debate , from the pen of Benjamin Reaoch, presents orthodoxy in doctrine and clarity in polarizing positions, together with a cogent reminder of exactly what is at stake in the gender debate. He recognizes that the debate over roles in marriage and family structure tears away at the warp and woof of who God is and what he had in mind for the man and woman created in his image, since the creation order is his tool for revealing himself through the metaphor of the family and familial relationships. Reaoch harmonizes and interfaces appropriately faithful exegesis and consistent hermeneutical methodology so that there is no question of authority or the nature of truth. Whether complementarian or egalitarian, you need to read this book. The complementarian author interacts with egalitarians respectfully by letting them speak for themselves and responsibly by pointing out the underlying issue for all: does God say what he means and mean what he says? For Reaoch, nothing trumps the written Word of God—not modern-day prophets or learned theologians, not new cultural values or human philosophies presented through innovative trajectory hermeneutics. I thank God for raising up men such as Benjamin Reaoch to hold the standard high and refuse to compromise for convenience or culture.”

— Dorothy Kelley Patterson , Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

“Ben Reaoch has given us a well-researched, well-written, and well-reasoned resource on the issue of slavery and gender in the New Testament. As our society becomes more and more polarized on issues of sexuality, race, and gender, Christians need significant guidance in navigating what the Bible says and does not say about these issues and how we are to understand and interpret them. This book provides such guidance and should become a standard in this area of study. It already has a place my library. I highly recommend it to yours.”

— Tony Carter , Pastor, East Point Church, East Point, Georgia

“In this very useful study, Benjamin Reaoch adds his voice to the growing chorus of those who have raised concerns with William Webb’s ‘redemptive movement hermeneutic,’ including eminent evangelical scholars such as Wayne Grudem, Thomas Schreiner, and Robert Yarbrough. Reaoch does not merely repeat these critiques, however, but excels in providing an incisive and comprehensive assessment of a hermeneutic that has the appearance of sophistication but in the end is found wanting when examined in light of the biblical teaching and subjected to judicious analysis.”

— Andreas J. Köstenberger , Senior Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology and Director of PhD Studies, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

“Benjamin Reaoch carefully sets forth and analyzes the views of those promoting development in a redemptive-historical hermeneutic. Not only does Reaoch fairly and accurately describe the position, but he also conducts a careful evaluation in which the exegetical and hermeneutical weaknesses of the view are unfolded. I enthusiastically commend this major and convincing treatment of one of the central hermeneutical debates of the day.”

— Thomas R. Schreiner , James Harrison Buchanan Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

WOMEN,

SLAVES,

AND THE

GENDER

DEBATE

A Complementarian Response to

the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic

Benjamin Reaoch

© 2012 by Benjamin Reaoch

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise—except for brief quotations for the purpose of review or comment, without the prior permission of the publisher, P&R Publishing Company, P.O. Box 817, Phillipsburg, New Jersey 08865–0817.

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™ Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked RSV are from The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, ©1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. All rights reserved. Used by permission. Some quotations represent the author’s modification of the Revised Standard Version.

Scripture quotations marked NAB are from the New American Bible , ©1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D. C., and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Italics within Scripture quotations indicate emphasis added, unless specified otherwise.

ISBN: 978-1-59638-401-9 (pbk)

ISBN: 978-1-59638-567-2 (ePub)

ISBN: 978-1-59638-568-9 (Mobi)

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Reaoch, Benjamin, 1976-

Women, slaves, and the gender debate : a complementarian response to the redemptive-movement hermeneutic / Benjamin Reaoch.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes.

ISBN 978-1-59638-401-9 (pbk.)

1. Women in the Bible. 2. Slavery in the Bible. 3. Equality--Biblical teaching. 4. Bible. N.T.--Hermeneutics. 5. Bible. N.T.--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 6. Christianity and culture. I. Title.

BS2545.W65R43 2012

225.8’305--dc23

2012006205

To Stacy

“Her children rise up and call her blessed;

her husband also, and he praises her.”

Proverbs 31:28

Contents

Foreword ix

Acknowledgments xiii

Abbreviations xv

Introduction xvii

1. The Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic 1

2. New Testament Statements concerning Slavery 23

3. New Testament Statements concerning Women 47

4. Comparing the Data 73

5. Hermeneutical Considerations: Part 1 85

6. Hermeneutical Considerations: Part 2 115

Conclusion 155

Postscript: The Continuing Discussion 161

Select Bibliography 177

Index of Scripture 185

Index of Subjects and Names 191

Foreword

O ne of the most sobering verses in the Bible is Psalm 50:21, where God accuses Israel, saying, “You thought I was just like you” ( HCSB ). We are shaped and molded by our culture in more ways than we recognize and even imagine. We have presuppositions, beliefs, and values that later generations will disparage. More important, we have beliefs, practices, and presuppositions that are repugnant to our sovereign, holy, and good God.

Our culture congratulates itself on being more compassionate and caring and gentle than previous generations. After all, our ancestors in the United States practiced slavery. They treated black human beings like property and degraded and dehumanized them. And we rightly see from our social location and place in history that American slavery was a horrendous evil. We see the evil of how we treated Native Americans in the United States, and acknowledge the atrocities committed by some soldiers in wars. We study marriages from a previous era and recognize that too often men have abused their wives and treated them like their property.

We see many of these things clearly and want to avoid the sins of earlier generations. We may secretly congratulate ourselves that we are kinder and gentler than those who preceded us. As Christians we may have grown up with fundamentalist parents who were exceedingly strict and, recognizing their harshness and rigidity, we see ourselves as more like Christ because we are forgiving, tolerant, and compassionate in ways that contrast with them.

In accord with our cultural context and way of perceiving reality, a new hermeneutical approach has arrived. It argues that we need to go beyond the Bible in constructing our ethic. If we stick with what the Bible says, we will perpetuate what is unjust and wrong. According to this hermeneutic, if we follow what the NT says about the relationships between men and women and husbands and wives, we will not be doing the will of God, for the redemptive movement in Scripture means we must go beyond Scripture to discover God’s perfect will.

What makes me skeptical is that the conclusions reached with this hermeneutic fit so well with our cultural moment. According to these interpreters, the Bible doesn’t teach that only men are permitted to serve as pastors. Those off-putting verses that Paul wrote don’t apply to us today. When we truly understand the message of Scripture, so it is said, we will acknowledge that women may serve as pastors.

Is the redemptive-movement hermeneutic correct? We don’t want to be like the fool in Proverbs who gives an answer before listening to what someone else says. We want to listen patiently to new views so that we are not close-minded traditionalists. Yet it is right to be chary of a view that resonates with our culture and goes contrary to what most Christians have believed throughout history. History isn’t the final authority. Traditions can be wrong. Everything must be judged by Scripture, yet the burden of proof is surely on those who argue contrary to the view that Christians have espoused throughout history. And I am happy to commend Ben Reaoch’s book, for he has patiently listened to those who advocate a redemptive-movement hermeneutic and found it wanting. Significantly, Reaoch makes his case by thoroughly examining and interpreting the Scriptures.

What is worrying is that we tend to think God agrees with our cultural values. We are prone to thinking God is just like us. And if we throw radical postmodernism into the mix, the brew can be quite toxic. I am not saying that the redemptive-movement advocates are postmodern. I am only saying that it fits with the postmodern turn. I just read recently someone who took exception to the command that we should be baptized, for such a hermeneutical conclusion was far too definite and imperious. If God’s clear commands are vacuumed into the abyss of postmodern relativity, the Word of God is swallowed up in a philosophy that is contrary to the teachings of Christ (Col. 2:8).

The above comments could be misunderstood. The hermeneutical issues are complex, and those who advocate a redemptive-movement hermeneutic raise matters that must be carefully considered. Ben Reaoch’s insightful evaluation of the hermeneutical and exegetical questions is precisely the kind of work we need. The issues raised can’t be examined thoroughly in a brief essay or a foreword! The question is whether the redemptive-movement hermeneutic is itself hermeneutically persuasive and exegetically faithful. Reaoch demonstrates that it falls short on both levels. The author’s work is marked by careful exegesis, hermeneutical awareness, and charity toward those with whom he disagrees. I am grateful for this book, for Reaoch believes that God’s final and definitive Word is found in the NT, and that the ethic of the NT does not need to be improved upon, for it is the living and abiding Word of God.

Thomas R. Schreiner

Acknowledgments

W orking on this project has been a joy, and finally bringing it to completion is an occasion for much thanksgiving. God has been very good to me, and I am grateful to him for so many individuals who have blessed my life. My parents, Ron and Barb Reaoch, have been a great encouragement and inspiration to me since I was young. They instilled in me a love for the Bible and a passion for Bible teaching, ministry, and missions. In God’s good providence, I have been fortunate to develop many friendships that have spurred me on in my love for the Lord and for his Word. Noah Toly, John Kimbell, Jason Meyer, Dustin Shramek, and Doug Wolter are among these. Additionally, God has graciously given me the opportunity to sit under many godly mentors and teachers. Mark Talbot at Wheaton College inspired me to think deeply and clearly about theological matters. John Piper, Tom Steller, and Sam Crabtree at Bethlehem Baptist Church continued to feed this passion and imparted to me a love for the church.

This book began as my doctoral dissertation under the supervision of Tom Schreiner at Southern Seminary. Tom has been for me an exemplary teacher, pastor, and friend. I have learned much from his classes, sermons, and books, from his insightful feedback during the process of this project, and from his wise counsel in various matters of life and ministry. Bruce Ware, Bill Cook, and Andreas Köstenberger also read this material, and I thank them for their valuable feedback. It has certainly improved the final product.

I also want to express my gratefulness to all those at P&R Publishing who have been involved in bringing this work to publication. Marvin Padgett, John Hughes, and Brian Kinney have all been a great help and encouragement to me in this process.

It’s a great privilege to be serving as pastor of Three Rivers Grace Church in Pittsburgh. I serve alongside elders and deacons who have made many sacrifices to help me complete this book, and the entire congregation has encouraged me and prayed for me throughout the process. I count it a tremendous blessing to be part of this congregation.

Finally, I want to express my profound gratitude for the precious family that God has given me. Our children, Milaina, Noah, and Annalyse, are a joy to my heart. My wife, Stacy, has been an amazing support and encouragement to me through all the ups and downs of school, ministry, and family life. She is a passionate follower of Jesus, an excellent wife, a loving mother, an organized and efficient homemaker, an example and mentor to other women, a joy to share life with, and my dearest friend. In many ways, Stacy is responsible for this writing project, for she was the one who suggested that I write a dissertation related to biblical manhood and womanhood. This has been a topic that is near and dear to Stacy’s heart, and we have had the joy of seeing its fruit in our own marriage, in our family, and in ministry. I am very fortunate to be married to a woman who joyfully embraces the biblical vision of womanhood. It is therefore with much joy that I dedicate this work to her.

Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

BDAG Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature , 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001)

BDF Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature , rev. ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961)

BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CGTC Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary

CSR Christian Scholar’s Review

DLNTD Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments

EQ Evangelical Quarterly

HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible

HNTC Harper’s New Testament Commentaries

ICC International Critical Commentary

IVP InterVarsity Press

JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion

JBMW Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament—Supplemental Series

LCL Loeb Classical Library

LXX Septuagint

NAC New American Commentary

NIBC New International Biblical Commentary

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIVAC The NIV Application Commentary

NTS New Testament Studies

PNTC The Pillar New Testament Commentary

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

TLNT Theological Lexicon of the New Testament

TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

TrinJ Trinity Journal

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

Introduction

T he current debate over the role of women in the home and in the church shows no signs of diminishing. ¹ Egalitarians continue to present arguments against role distinctions, while complementarians still argue that the Bible presents men and women as equal in essence and distinct in role. An egalitarian argument that is gaining support is known as the redemptive-movement hermeneutic, or trajectory hermeneutic. ² Advocates of this approach concede many of the exegetical conclusions made by complementarians concerning the relevant biblical passages, but then they argue there are indications in the Bible that move us beyond the specific instructions of the Bible and toward an ultimate ethic. For instance, the Bible commands slaves to submit to their masters, and yet basic principles in the Bible point toward the abolition of slavery. The issue of women’s roles is very much the same, these writers assert. ³ The Bible places women in a subordinate role in the home and in the church, yet there are also principles in the Bible that point toward their full liberation. ⁴

Thesis

On the one hand, the redemptive-movement description of the slavery issue may prove to be helpful. We must not be too quick to forget how adamantly our evangelical forefathers argued from the Bible for the continuation of slavery, ⁵ and complementarians may benefit from insights the redemptive-movement hermeneutic offers in arguing against slavery from the Bible. ⁶

However, there are some key differences between the slavery issue and the gender issue in the Bible, and the redemptive-movement hermeneutic overemphasizes the similarities between the two. The analogy between slaves and women is a foundational assumption for this hermeneutic, and therefore we must closely scrutinize it. It may be appropriate to see a “trajectory,” in some sense, in the biblical statements on slavery, whereas the instructions to women do not allow this. My thesis is as follows: The significant differences between the New Testament instructions to slaves and to women seriously undermine the conclusions made by the redemptive-movement hermeneutic. The fact that the New Testament “points beyond” the institution of slavery does not indicate that it likewise points beyond God’s design for gender roles.

The crucial distinction between the two issues is seen in the fact that no biblical writer advocates for slavery based on the order of creation. In this way the slavery passages are significantly different from the instructions concerning the roles of men and women, which are explicitly rooted in creation. The issue of slavery in the Bible is not an easy one, however. The New Testament does not explicitly condemn slavery or clearly command masters to release their slaves. Is the absence of a clear denunciation of slavery because the New Testament contains a less-than-ultimate ethic, as trajectory advocates would suggest? Or is there a more accurate way to understand the New Testament statements in light of their cultural context?

This book will thoroughly investigate the exegetical and hermeneutical questions related to the issues of slavery and women in the New Testament. I will seek to demonstrate that a trajectory approach is not a viable solution to these complex questions and is not justified in its conclusions with regard to the gender debate.

The Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic

This book will be a combination of exegetical study and hermeneutical analysis, with an emphasis on the latter. Chapter 1 will begin with a description of the redemptive-movement hermeneutic, including a brief discussion of complementarian responses to this hermeneutic, and finally a section on the nineteenth-century slavery debate.

Exegesis

Chapters 2 and 3 will examine the passages that pertain to slaves (chapter 2) and women (chapter 3). The detailed exegesis of these passages is a crucial component of this study. Kevin Giles asserts, “The reasons given for slaves to be subordinate are more consistent and weightier than those to women, for there is a repeated Christological appeal (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; 1 Peter 2:18–21).” ⁷ These kinds of statements must be evaluated carefully. I will attempt to conduct a detailed exegetical analysis of each passage in the hope of clarifying the distinctions between the two kinds of texts.

Chapter 2 will begin with a section on slavery in the first century. Then the exegetical discussion will be organized by focusing on the passages where specific commands are given to slaves, first examining the passages that contain a ground for obedience (Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:24; 1 Peter 2:19–20) and then the passages that attach a purpose clause to the imperative (1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:10). Other relevant passages will then be covered (Philemon; Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 3:1; 1 Tim. 1:10; 1 Cor. 7:21). The chapter will conclude by addressing the question, “Why does the New Testament not condemn the institution of slavery?”

In chapter 3, a similar format will be used in the examination of the New Testament commands to women, first discussing those commands that contain a ground clause (1 Cor. 11:8; 1 Tim. 2:13; Eph. 5:23; Col. 3:18; 1 Cor. 14:34), and then the two passages in which exhortations to women are followed by a purpose clause (1 Peter 3:1; Titus 2:5). Chapter 4 will be a comparison of the data gathered in chapters 2 and 3. I will observe that similarities are evident between the slavery passages and women passages when we look at the purpose clauses, but a comparison of the ground clauses reveals significant differences. Chapter 4 also contains a discussion of the Household Codes.

Hermeneutics

The other significant component of this study will be hermeneutical. The exegesis is crucial to demonstrate clearly the similarities and differences between the texts, but the hermeneutical questions are the determining factor in this debate. ⁸ Much of the hermeneutical discussion will involve responses to William Webb, since his book and articles contain the fullest expression of a redemptive-movement hermeneutic. ⁹ Other trajectory advocates will enter the discussion at various points, but the structure of chapters 6 and 7 will be organized around eight of Webb’s hermeneutical criteria that he presents in Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals . Chapter 5 will include a discussion of theological analogy, preliminary movement, seed ideas, and purpose/intent statements. On these points, there are certain similarities between the slavery issue and the issue of women’s roles. ¹⁰ However, there are also important differences. Chapter 6 will deal with the issues of original creation, primogeniture, creation versus redemption, and specific instructions versus general principles.

The redemptive-movement hermeneutic seeks to wrestle with some difficult interpretive questions, and helpful observations are made. However, the conclusion these authors reach, that we must move beyond the specific biblical instructions concerning manhood and womanhood, is not warranted. I will seek to demonstrate that it is unwarranted through the detailed exegesis of the slavery passages and women’s passages, and then by interacting with the hermeneutical points that have been presented.

1

The Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic

T his chapter will summarize the views of several scholars who have advocated a trajectory hermeneutic and have drawn a close parallel between the slavery issue and the gender debate. This summary will contain a comprehensive history of neither the slavery debate nor the gender debate, but rather will focus on the redemptive-movement hermeneutic and the relationship between slavery and the issue of women’s roles in the New Testament. The chapter will conclude with a section on the nineteenth-century slavery debate, because some aspects of the redemptive-movement hermeneutic find antecedents in abolitionist arguments.

Krister Stendahl

In his 1966 book, The Bible and the Role of Women: A Case Study in Hermeneutics , Krister Stendahl presents a hermeneutical model very similar to the trajectory approach advocated by evangelicals today. ¹¹ He writes in the context of the debate over women’s ordination in the Church of Sweden, and he acknowledges that the real issue in the debate is the application of Scripture. Both sides agree concerning the original meaning of the texts, but they disagree as to how the texts should be applied today. ¹² Stendahl advocates moving beyond the practices of the first-century church and following the trajectory set out for us in statements such as Galatians 3:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:11–12. He refers to the “breakthrough” of Galatians 3:28, and he sees in 1 Corinthians 11:11–12 a “glimpse” of that breakthrough. ¹³ He stresses the need to apply Galatians 3:28 in all its dimensions and all its fullness. Each pair (Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female) must be worked out in the life of the church and not restricted to “the realm coram deo .” ¹⁴

Stendahl also emphasizes the newness of this “breakthrough,” stating that “something has happened which transcends the Law itself and thereby even the order of creation.” ¹⁵ These radical principles obliterate the traditional distinctions in each of the three pairs, and point beyond them to a higher ideal. Therefore, we must no longer enforce the specific instructions concerning women’s subordination. Those instructions describe the situation of the early church, but they are not normative for the church today. ¹⁶

Concerning slavery, Stendahl gives slight preference to the following translation of 1 Corinthians 7:21: “but even if a chance of liberty should come, choose rather to make good use of your servitude.” ¹⁷ In other words, Paul was probably not encouraging emancipation, but rather calling individuals to remain in their current positions. Stendahl briefly discusses Philemon and writes, “The tone of the letter is best understood as a plea for having Onesimus set free.” ¹⁸ But then he asserts, “Whatever the implications of such texts, there can be no doubt that the New Testament shows no urgency in the matter of emancipation of slaves.” ¹⁹ He points to the history of the debate over slavery as an indication that we must move beyond biblical proof texts and apply Galatians 3:28 more broadly to political and social matters. ²⁰

In summary, these “trajectory” arguments from Stendahl have been around for almost half a century. Stendahl maintains that the real issue in the debate over women’s ordination is how the texts should be applied. His assertion is that the “breakthrough” texts such as Galatians 3:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:11–12 should point us beyond the specific instructions we find elsewhere in the New Testament. These passages point to something new, something beyond the order of creation. Stendahl also uses the uncertainty of the New Testament’s stance on slavery as an indication that we cannot limit Galatians 3:28 to the level of individual salvation, apart from political and social issues. This “breakthrough” must trump other New Testament statements.

R. T. France

R. T. France comments on the similarity between the slavery debate and the debate over the ordination of women. Concerning the slow process that brought about the abolition of slavery, he writes,

It was only gradually that Christians were led to realize that Scripture speaks with more than one voice on the issue, and that the simple appeal to the cultural pattern which appears on the surface of the biblical text may need to yield to more fundamental ethical principles which, while not explicitly applied to slavery in Scripture, must ultimately lead to its abolition. ²¹

He also observes the male-dominated nature of first-century society and comments, “it remains, like the institution of slavery, a part of the given scene which is neither commended nor directly disputed, but which will in due course be undermined as Christian people are enabled to apply the wider principles of New Testament ethics in the context of a changing world-order.” ²²

At the end of the book, France cites F. F. Bruce’s comment that Galatians 3:28 is the basic principle by which the other Pauline statements must be interpreted. ²³ France agrees with this principle, which rests not on a small number of texts, “but in a trajectory of thought and practice developing through Scripture, and arguably pointing beyond itself to the fuller outworking of God’s ultimate purpose in Christ in ways which the first-century situation did not yet allow” (emphasis added). ²⁴

Richard Longenecker

In his book New Testament Social Ethics for Today , Richard Longenecker sets forth a “developmental hermeneutic.” He upholds the proclamation and principles of the New Testament as normative, and then clarifies, “The way that proclamation and its principles were put into practice in the first century, however, should be understood as signposts at the beginning of a journey which point out the path to be followed if we are to reapply that same gospel in our day.” ²⁵

In the rest of the book, Longenecker seeks to embark on that journey, and he organizes his discussion around the key passage, Galatians 3:28. First he deals with the social ramifications of Jew and Greek, then slave and free, and finally male and female. In his chapter on the male/female component of this verse, he points out two key categories that the apostle Paul was dealing with: creation and redemption. The focus on creation emphasizes “order, subordination, and submission,” while the focus on redemption stresses “freedom, mutuality, and equality.” ²⁶ “What Paul attempted to do in working out his theology was to keep both categories united—though, I would insist, with an emphasis on redemption.” ²⁷ Thus, there are still differences between men and women (e.g., Paul condemns homosexual behavior). But the emphasis is on redemption, so that “what God has done in Christ transcends what is true simply because of creation.” ²⁸

This emphasis on redemption over against creation is closely related to the principle of following the perceived path of the general principles in Scripture (which are the redemptive, forward-looking, liberating statements) rather than some of the specific instructions (which seem restrictive, emphasize order, and may be rooted in creation). Like France, Longenecker cites Bruce’s comment on Galatians 3:28. This seems to be a basic presupposition for these scholars, namely, that their understanding of Galatians 3:28 takes ultimate priority in the discussion. This implies a tension between the general principle in Galatians 3:28 and the specific instructions in other passages.

David Thompson

In his 1996 article, “Women, Men, Slaves and the Bible: Hermeneutical Inquiries,” David Thompson develops a system that is similar to what Webb would present five years later. ²⁹ “One attends especially to two matters in discerning the direction of the canon’s dialogue: 1) the relationship of the particular passages to their cultural environment, i.e., the direction in which the passages themselves in their historical contexts are already pointing, and 2) the relationships between the passages involved.” ³⁰

Here we see a foreshadowing of the cultural analysis conducted by Webb. Thompson also capitalizes on the comparison between slavery and the gender debate. The abolitionists, he writes,

saw a trajectory leading beyond the canon and its unresolved dialogue to the abolition of slavery. . . . This is important history, for few if any present evangelicals would want to defend slavery as acceptable Christian teaching. This means we have already accepted the hermeneutic entailed in the egalitarian position regarding men and women. ³¹

Thompson observes a close parallel between the issue of slavery and the issue of women’s roles in the home and church. He also advocates a trajectory hermeneutic that analyzes the relationship between biblical commands and the cultural setting in which they were written.

William Webb

Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals has been a significant addition to the trajectory hermeneutic; ³² William Webb also refers to it as a redemptive-movement hermeneutic. It becomes much more complex and detailed in the way he formulates it. He presents eighteen criteria by which we can determine whether a command is limited to the original culture and setting, or whether it transcends culture and is applicable to all times and places. As the title indicates, he analyzes the three issues involving slaves, women, and homosexuals, and the method is to compare what the Bible says about these issues with the cultural contexts in which the biblical statements were written (either ancient Near Eastern or Greco-Roman). When the biblical commands can be seen against the backdrop of their cultures, a trajectory can be discerned that is either more liberating or more restrictive than the original context. Webb sees the commands concerning homosexuals moving in a more restrictive direction, whereas he sees the commands for slaves and women moving in the direction of complete liberation. Thus, on the one hand, he concludes that the biblical prohibitions against homosexual behavior are still authoritative. On the other hand, we are encouraged to move beyond the specific instructions that condone slavery and male headship.

Webb repeatedly likens the issue of women’s roles—the combination of biblical issues such as a wife’s role in marriage and women teaching and having authority over men in the context of the church—to the slavery issue, and this correlation is foundational to his hermeneutic. Under the criterion of “seed ideas,” Webb discusses the social implications of Galatians 3:28 (also 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:15; Col. 3:11). He states,

One must now ask if the “in Christ” formula should carry social implications for the equality of women. It certainly did in Paul’s day for Gentiles. And, it did over the course of church history for slaves. Why should it not today for females? In this manner Paul’s sociological outworking of the Galatians 3:28 text becomes a paradigm of equality for these other categories of social inequality. ³³

The parallel that is drawn between the slavery texts and the women’s texts has a great deal of persuasive power. Virtually all agree that slavery is wrong and that abolition is an appropriate application of the Bible’s teaching. But the question Webb raises in the above quote is crucial: Why shouldn’t the social implications of Galatians 3:28 be applied in such a way that male headship is abolished just as slavery has been abolished in this country?

Webb is keenly aware of the apparent difference between the two issues. “Obviously there exists a crucial difference between slavery and patriarchy. The former is not found in the creation story, while the latter, perhaps in implicit ways, is.” ³⁴ Therefore a significant piece of Webb’s argument has to do with original creation. Criterion 6 and criterion 7 are devoted to this issue, and they fall under the designation “Moderately Persuasive Criteria.” Webb states, “A component of a text may be transcultural if its basis is rooted in the original-creation material.” ³⁵ He then discusses various components of Genesis 1–2, seeking to demonstrate that certain aspects are transcultural (e.g., lifelong marriage as opposed to divorce) while others are not (e.g., farming as an occupation, ground transportation, vegetarian diet). Concerning the roles of men and women, he admits that there are “hints of patriarchy” in the creation narrative. But since there are several cultural components in the garden, these “quiet whispers” of patriarchy cannot be conclusive. ³⁶

In criterion 7, he moves to a discussion of primogeniture, the rights of the firstborn. The importance of this discussion is found in the debate over the correct interpretation and application of 1 Timothy 2:12, where the following verse (v. 13) grounds the instruction in the order of creation. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Webb is sympathetic to the complementarian interpretation of this verse, which acknowledges the aspect of primogeniture. However, he then marshals an argument against the continued application of this principle. Several biblical examples are given in order to show that primogeniture is often overturned. Primogeniture is also an ancient practice, and it is no longer enforced by Christians. Therefore, since primogeniture is a cultural component of the text and no longer applicable today, Webb concludes that we should only apply the underlying principle of “granting honor to whom honor is due.” ³⁷ In relation to 1 Timothy 2 specifically, he says we should apply this principle to both genders: “Choose teachers/leaders who are worthy of high honor within the congregation.” ³⁸

Pivotal to Webb’s conclusions are the following assumptions:

(1) the issue of gender roles is closely analogous to the slavery issue, and

(2) patriarchy’s basis in original creation does not conclusively differentiate the two. If, in fact, basis in original creation is more than “moderately” persuasive, and thus sets apart the women’s texts from the slavery texts, Webb’s egalitarian position based on a trajectory hermeneutic would be severely weakened.

Kevin Giles

Kevin Giles is more explicit than Webb in drawing a parallel between slavery and the gender debate. ³⁹ He strongly emphasizes the biblical support for slavery, and rehearses the arguments that have been used to defend it. His point is to show that slavery is a cultural aspect of the Bible just as male headship is. In fact, he says, “The ‘biblical’ case for slavery is far more impressive than the ‘biblical’ case for the permanent subordination of women.” ⁴⁰ The tendency is to read the slavery texts in a negative light, which is then presented as a conclusive argument for moving beyond the Bible’s instructions.

Giles also attacks the assumption that the slavery issue and the gender issue are supported differently in the Bible. He writes, “The assertion by contemporary hierarchical-complementarians that these parallel exhortations to women and slaves to be subordinate are to be contrasted is an entirely novel idea, never heard before the 1970s and rejected universally by critical scholarly studies of the Household Codes or Rules.” ⁴¹ He proceeds by comparing the exhortations to wives and the exhortations to slaves and concludes that “the appeal to creation is the exception to the rule , not the pattern” (emphasis original). ⁴²

This gets to the heart of the question I will be dealing with in this book. What, in fact, are the similarities and differences between the slavery texts and the women texts? Giles emphasizes the similarities and minimizes the differences, and thus builds a case for viewing the biblical instructions as remnants of an ancient culture. They no longer apply in our day. If a careful study of the two issues demonstrates significant differences, Giles’s conclusions will lose much of their force.

I. Howard Marshall

I. Howard Marshall can also be placed in the category of those who advocate a trajectory hermeneutic. He argues that the New Testament commands concerning women are no longer applicable. Paul was speaking to his cultural context, and those details have little or no relevance for us now. In his book, Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology , Marshall sets forth a program similar to although not as comprehensive as Webb’s.

Marshall refers favorably to Webb’s work: “[Webb] is able to show how there is a tendency toward a fuller liberation in the ongoing history of redemption, . . . and he argues that this can and should be carried further in the church.” ⁴³ In Marshall’s chapter in Discovering Biblical Equality he sounds very much like Webb when he says, “The concept of marriage between equal partners is just beginning to be perceived in the New Testament, and Paul should not be expected to step outside his time and see the consequences of his teaching any more than he is to be faulted for not commanding the abolition of slavery.” ⁴⁴

Complementarian Responses

Wayne Grudem and Thomas Schreiner have both critiqued Webb’s system in a detailed manner. On the issue of slavery, Grudem criticizes Webb for assuming that the Bible condones slavery: “The NT never commanded slavery, but gave principles that regulated it and ultimately led to its abolition.” ⁴⁵ The important question is whether or not the statements in the New Testament can be taken as an endorsement of slavery. If so, either slavery is in fact justified, or the redemptive-movement model seems to be a necessary and plausible tool in showing why it is not justified. But if the New Testament simply regulates slavery and points toward its abolition, then the perceived need for the redemptive-movement hermeneutic evaporates. ⁴⁶

Thomas Schreiner’s main criticism of Webb is that he does not deal sufficiently with redemptive history . There is a tremendous emphasis on redemptive movement , but it lacks an explanation of redemptive history . ⁴⁷ This results in confused comparisons between certain Old Testament statements and New Testament instructions. For instance, since many of the practices in the garden of Eden are seen as cultural (vegetarianism, walking as the only mode of transportation, farming as the only occupation), Webb relegates his sixth and seventh criteria (basis in original creation, and primogeniture) to the level of only “moderately persuasive.” Since we do not continue to enforce many aspects from the garden, neither should we continue to enforce the instruction from 1 Timothy 2:12, which is based on truths from the garden.

When we let Scripture interpret Scripture, though, we can see fairly easily what aspects of the garden have an enduring significance. As Schreiner notes, it is clear even in the book of Genesis that God did not intend for all humans to limit themselves to walking or farming or a vegetarian diet. ⁴⁸ When we come to 1 Timothy 2 we should see the weight of Paul’s argument from creation. Not everything in the creation account is to be applied today, of course, but the inspired apostle uses this pivotal aspect of the creation order in his instruction for the ministries of women. Schreiner writes, “When it comes to divorce, homosexuality, and the women’s issue, the NT argues from the created order.” ⁴⁹ Slavery, in contrast, is not supported in this way in the New Testament. “Nowhere does Paul justify slavery by referring to a particular OT text or the created order, as he does the relationship between men and women.” ⁵⁰

Robert Yarbrough also critiques the redemptive-movement hermeneutic, responding to Webb as well as Stendahl, Bruce, and Giles. ⁵¹ First, Yarbrough responds to Webb’s critique of his chapter in the first edition of Women in the Church . ⁵² Webb speaks unfavorably of Yarbrough’s “static hermeneutic,” and contends that it should not be labeled “historic” or “traditional,” for the redemptive-movement hermeneutic has also played a major role in the history of interpreting the Bible. ⁵³ Yarbrough agrees that the redemptive-movement hermeneutic has been used throughout the centuries in various ways. “But,” he says, “I continue to maintain that my hermeneutic, which affirms some form and degree of male headship in home and church, is the ‘historic’ one compared to [Webb’s].” ⁵⁴ He goes on to say, “How can we call Webb’s approach ‘historic’ when it demands that we change the general understanding of biblical teaching on men and women that prevailed for nearly twenty centuries?” ⁵⁵

Later in the chapter, Yarbrough interacts with Krister Stendahl and F. F. Bruce, who both used Galatians 3:28 to effectively silence other gender passages. Yarbrough concludes:

The problem with Bruce’s and Stendahl’s method is not that it recognizes tension in the Bible. The Reformation principle that Scripture interprets Scripture ( sacra scriptura sui interpres ) implies the presence of obscure or ostensibly conflicting passages. The problem lies in the recourse to a distinctly modern consciousness to adjudicate Scripture’s meaning. This is to step outside the horizon of Scripture to determine Scripture’s significance. It is to imperil the sola scriptura doctrine of the Reformation and similar affirmations of earlier periods. ⁵⁶

Finally, Yarbrough critiques the view of Kevin Giles. He states that “Giles too facilely equates biblical teaching on slavery and its teaching on male-female relations,” ⁵⁷ and goes on to delineate some of the key differences.

The complementarian position observes a fundamental distinction between the slavery issue and the issue of women’s roles. The Bible does not, in fact, condone slavery. Rather, it regulates it and points to its demise. Regarding women, on the other hand, we find instructions that are rooted in the creation order and therefore transcend culture.

Nineteenth-Century Slavery Debate

Can the redemptive-movement hermeneutic be traced back to the abolitionist arguments of the nineteenth century? This interesting question has been raised by those involved in the current discussion. ⁵⁸ A multitude of arguments were formulated against slavery in the 1800s, and some of them were similar to the trajectory approach. I will paint a general picture of the nineteenth-century slavery debate, in which I will describe some of the abolitionist arguments. In this way I hope to show that some abolitionist arguments were similar to the trajectory hermeneutic, but others were not. Thus, an appeal to redemptive movement was not necessary to formulate a valid biblical argument against slavery.

The Biblical Debate over Slavery

Mark Noll delineates four positions that were held in the antebellum slavery debate. The first group abandoned the Bible because they viewed it as sanctioning slavery. ⁵⁹ The second group agreed that the Bible sanctioned slavery, and thus used the Bible to justify slavery in the United States. A third group “conceded that, while the Bible did indeed sanction a form of slavery, careful attention to the text of Scripture itself would show that the simple presence of slavery in the Bible was not a necessary justification for slavery as it existed in the United States.” ⁶⁰ Finally, there was the position that distinguished between the letter and the spirit of the Bible. The letter may condone slavery, but the spirit of the biblical message was clearly against it. ⁶¹ This final position resembles facets of the trajectory hermeneutic, for it rests on the distinction between specific instructions and general principles.

Looking at the antislavery arguments, J. Albert Harrill provides an assessment of how these arguments evolved over the course of the debate. The earlier abolitionists, he says, used a more literal and “anti-intellectual” approach to Scripture. For instance, some argued that Jesus never condemned slavery because he never met any slaves, asserting that the Greek word doulos simply means “servant.” ⁶² Others even appealed to the translators of the King James Version of the Bible, who always rendered doulos as “servant” rather than “slave.” ⁶³

Still others, however, presented a more reasonable rationale for why Jesus did not directly denounce slavery, namely, that he did not speak out against every evil he encountered. We do not find any record of him condemning practices such as “sodomy, polygamy, infanticide, idolatry, or blasphemy,” ⁶⁴ but we cannot conclude that Jesus did not think these were sins.

Nevertheless, when the pro-slavery arguments seemed to be winning the exegetical battle, other abolitionists made a dramatic shift toward “immutable principles.” “The exact opposite of the earlier plain-sense approach, the hermeneutics of immutable principles claims that biblical interpretation must look beyond the flat reading of the text.” ⁶⁵ This took various forms, including appeal to the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12 and Luke 6:31) and to Colossians 4:1, “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly.” “Because Col. 4:1 cohered with the Golden Rule, it must be the privileged text that exercises hermeneutical control over the interpretation of other, more difficult Pauline passages.” ⁶⁶ Thus, the general principles of love and equality achieved priority over the specific instructions that seemed to condone slavery.

Still, there was the question of why the New Testament does not speak out openly against slavery. Harrill says that among the earlier antislavery arguments, expediency was offered as the reason for this. ⁶⁷ It was thought that if Paul openly condemned slavery, it would be so countercultural that it would cause more harm than good. Indeed, an outright attack on the institution of slavery in the first century could have incited the anger of the Roman Empire and brought an end to the burgeoning Christian church. ⁶⁸ Therefore, it was thought that the seed of abolition grew secretly .

Later abolitionists, though, rejected this reasoning in favor of the idea that the seed grew openly . ⁶⁹ Paul was not, in fact, secretive about his position on slavery. He made it clear in 1 Timothy 1:10 (KJV) that “manstealing” is wrong and in 1 Corinthians 7:21 that slaves should seek freedom if the opportunity presents itself. ⁷⁰ However, when these arguments did not seem to be effective, the abolitionist cause turned to another hermeneutical approach, namely, moral intuition. This position emphasized the ascendancy of personal conscience as a way of discerning God’s law. ⁷¹ In this way, the abolitionist arguments took a further step away from a “plain sense” reading of the Bible.

Specific Instructions versus General Principles

With this background in view, let us focus on one similarity between nineteenth-century abolitionist arguments and the current trajectory model. Mason Lowance compares pro-slavery and antislavery sermons, and writes of the latter, “Their emphasis was less on the exegesis of text and more on the moral application of the spiritual principles inherent in the text to the social and political issue of slavery in America.” ⁷² Lowance points out this tendency in a sermon by Alexander McLeod, who began with Exodus 21:16 as his biblical text, “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” But then McLeod’s sermon turns quickly to general principles, and he appeals to the “natural rights of man.” ⁷³

Willard Swartley makes a similar observation of abolitionist hermeneutics and commends this practice to his readers.

Abolitionist writers gave priority to theological principles and basic moral imperatives, which in turn put slavery under moral judgment. The point we should learn from this is that theological principles and basic moral imperatives should be primary biblical resources for addressing social issues today. These should carry greater weight than specific statements on a given topic even though the statements speak expressly to the topic under discussion. ⁷⁴

This emphasis on principles seems to be one of the most apparent parallels between nineteenth-century abolitionism and the contemporary trajectory hermeneutic.

Emancipation of Slaves and Women

The next question is how the abolitionists viewed the relationship between the emancipation of slaves and the emancipation of women, for this connection forms a critical piece of the foundation for the trajectory hermeneutic. On this question we find an interesting difference between nineteenth-century abolitionists and the redemptive-movement hermeneutic today. As noted above, the contemporary trajectory approach appeals strongly to the parallel between the slavery texts and the women’s texts. But in the nineteenth century, it was the pro-slavery position that assumed a parallel between the two issues, and abolitionists differentiated them. ⁷⁵

Albert Barnes, an abolitionist, writes, “But it is not true that in any sense the apostles ‘legislated’ for slavery as they did for the relation of husband and wife, and parent and child. It is not true that they ever represented those relations as parallel, or as equally desirable and acceptable to God.” ⁷⁶ Then he demonstrates how they are different,

(a) they uniformly represent servitude as a hard condition, and as in itself undesirable. . . . But where do they represent the condition of a wife or child as necessarily a hard and undesirable condition? (b) They enjoin on slaves submission to their condition as a hard one, and one in which they were constantly liable to suffer wrong. . . . (c) The principal virtue which the apostles enjoin on slaves to cultivate, is that of patience under wrong . . . . (d) They represented it as desirable to escape from servitude if it could be done; or as more desirable to be free than to be in that condition [cites 1 Cor. 7:21]. But where is any thing like this said respecting the condition of a wife or child? (italics original) ⁷⁷

These observations demonstrate the difference between the way the Bible treats slavery and the way it treats marriage and family matters. The Bible points toward the demise of slavery but does not call for an end to role distinctions in marriage or the end of role distinctions in the parent/child relationship.

The pro-slavery position denies this distinction. George Armstrong writes, “With civil government, marriage, the family, and slavery [the Apostles] dealt in the same way. All that was sinful, contrary to the laws of God, in each, as then actually existing, they clearly and unequivocally condemn. . . . But they touch not the institutions themselves.” ⁷⁸ Pro-slavery arguments viewed the slavery issue as analogous to the gender issue, whereas abolitionist arguments did not. Presumably, since male headship was so ingrained in the social structures of the nineteenth century, the pro-slavery advocates tried to use patriarchy in their defense. The abolitionists had to distinguish slavery from the instructions for women so they could show that the slavery passages needed to be applied differently.

In a review of Swartley’s book, Stephen Mott observes the connection between these issues. “That the pro-slavery debaters saw that the hermeneutics condemning slavery could support the emancipation of women is also striking. Opponents of slavery rejected the connection. History, as well as hermeneutical insight, fortunately appear to be with the fears of the former.” ⁷⁹ This statement assumes the pro-slavery arguments were correct in viewing the two debates as parallel. However, the arguments for the pro-slavery position are not necessarily valid. Abolitionists presented some sound arguments for viewing the two issues differently.

Biblical Arguments against Slavery

Certainly many arguments against slavery were based on immutable principles, and other arguments were weak and misguided. But we must not minimize the value of other solid, biblical arguments that arose out of the texts themselves. For instance, the appeals to Exodus 21:16, 1 Corinthians 7:21, 1 Timothy 1:10, and Philemon ⁸⁰ are powerful arguments that come from what the Bible itself teaches. One need not pit immutable principles against specific instructions. Rather, these verses speak for themselves. The observation that Jesus did not condemn every wrong he encountered is also helpful in refuting the claim that Jesus implicitly endorsed slavery.

In these ways, abolitionist arguments were presented that make legitimate appeal to biblical texts. Even in the Old Testament, and especially in Paul, a foundation was laid that would reform slavery and eventually lead to its demise. The fact that the pro-slavery position offered alternative readings of these passages does not diminish these verses as significant statements that undermine the entire slave enterprise. I will further discuss the exegetical issues of the debated passages later in the book. At this point I simply want to assert that some of the abolitionist arguments were sound and biblical, without appealing to immutable principles.

Racism and Slavery

The question then arises, Why did the arguments from Scripture not succeed? Why did abolitionism have to move to immutable principles and then even to a hermeneutic of moral intuition? Mark Noll writes, “The main reason, however, that alternative hermeneutics failed, as well as the main reason for the conceptual confusion on Scripture in the division between North and South, was race.” ⁸¹ The reason the Southern exegetes could not see the hypocrisy of their “exegetical” conclusions was that they were blind to the blatant racism they simply presupposed. Although the slavery advocates may have shown a higher level of exegetical sophistication, their moral blindness kept them from seeing the perversity of their endeavor. Noll notes the disconnect: “On slavery, exegetes stood for a commonsense reading of the Bible. On race, exegetes forsook the Bible and relied on common sense.” ⁸²

Charles Hodge is a prime example of an excellent exegete and theologian who could not see that his racial presuppositions radically affected how he applied Scripture. He believed that the Christian life must be guided by the Bible alone.

But so pervasive was the instinct of racism, even in his guileless soul, that he could not see how thoroughly he intertwined conclusions about what the Bible taught and opinions about the nature of African Americans that arose from no text of Scripture. The Bible was a lot clearer on slavery than on the enslavement of one race only, but Hodge could not tell the difference. ⁸³

The debate would have been much different if it were not for this moral blindness. The abolitionist arguments likely would have been received with less hostility and suspicion. There would have been more open-mindedness toward the biblical arguments against slavery, rather than the dogmatic assumptions that arose from racism.

Conclusion

The two foci of this study (slavery and women’s roles) have been related to one another in fascinating ways throughout the years. The nineteenth-century debate reminds us that we all have presuppositions, and we ought to be mindful of the effect those presuppositions can have on our exegetical conclusions. A reflective and self-critical spirit is needed in dealing with these sensitive issues.

In the nineteenth century, some already observed a tension between specific instructions and general principles, and they asserted that the general principles must take precedence. In modern scholarship, Stendahl applied this method to the debate over women’s ordination. Others have adopted this position and have developed it in a much fuller way (mainly Webb). My desire is to take a fresh look at the exegetical and hermeneutical questions related to slavery and women’s roles and to bring some clarity to the assumed tension between general principles and specific instructions.

2

New Testament

Statements

concerning Slavery

K evin Giles compares the biblical statements concerning slavery and the biblical statements concerning the subordination of women, and he states, “The ‘biblical’ case for slavery is far more impressive than the ‘biblical’ case for the permanent subordination of women.” ⁸⁴ He is referring to the “biblical” arguments that have been produced to support the institution of slavery, especially those crafted by the well-respected Reformed theologians of the nineteenth century. And, of course, Giles’s point is not to endorse slavery, but to show that the statements about slavery and the statements about the subordination of women are both obsolete. They are time-bound instructions that applied to the original readers of the New Testament, but they do not apply to us today.

The aim in this chapter is to examine closely what the New Testament says about slavery, and in the next chapter the same will be done with respect to the instructions for women. This chapter begins with a brief description of slavery in the first century, and then analyzes the NT passages that deal directly with slavery. The following questions will guide the study. What is commanded of slaves? What are the stated grounds for their obedience? What are the stated purposes of their obedience? What other passages are relevant to this discussion? Finally, I will raise the question of why the NT does not explicitly condemn the institution of slavery. Thus, it will be possible to assess what is the NT stance toward slavery. Is there a strong “biblical” case for slavery, as Giles asserts? Or is there a better way of understanding this complex issue? In chapter 4, this data will be compared and contrasted with the NT statements concerning women.

Slavery in the First Century

The experience of slaves in the first century varied greatly. On one end of the spectrum, to be a slave in a good household could be a position envied by some free persons. ⁸⁵ Epictetus, although he acknowledges that “it is the slave’s prayer that he be set free immediately,” ⁸⁶ goes on to say that freedom will not bring the happiness that the slave expected. The freed slave will eventually say, “Why, what was wrong with me? Someone else kept me in clothes, and shoes, and supplied me with food, and nursed me when I was sick; I served him in only a few matters. But now, miserable man that I am, what suffering is mine, who am a slave to several instead of one!” ⁸⁷ Thus, there were potential advantages of being a slave, if one belonged to a benevolent master. ⁸⁸

On the other end of the spectrum are reports of horrible abuse. For example, Vedius Pollio intended to throw his slave into a pond of huge lampreys for the minor offense of breaking a crystal cup. Fortunately, the slave was spared. ⁸⁹ In another account, 400 innocent slaves were executed because one of the slaves in that household murdered the master. ⁹⁰ There is also the sad reality that many slaves were used as sexual objects. The master assumed ownership over the slave’s body as well as the slave’s work. ⁹¹

J. A. Harrill describes the use of the Roman whip ( flagellum ) in slave abuse, stating, “The evidence proves the torture of ancient slaves to have been far more severe than the punishments sanctioned by the law in the slave society of Brazil, the most brutal of the modern world.” ⁹² He goes on to say, “Despite claims by some NT scholars, ancient slavery was not more humane than modern slavery.” ⁹³

Indeed, the abuse of slaves in the first century (e.g., unjust punishments, use of the flagellum , and sexual abuse) might have been as bad as or worse than modern slavery. However, several facets of Greco-Roman slavery differentiate it from slavery in the New World. Murray J. Harris states the differences succinctly:

In the first century, slaves were not distinguishable from free persons by race, by speech or by clothing; they were sometimes more highly educated than their owners and held responsible professional positions; some persons sold themselves into slavery for economic or social advantage; they could reasonably hope to be emancipated after ten to twenty years of service or by their thirties at the latest; they were not denied the right of public assembly and were not socially segregated (at least in the cities); they could accumulate savings to buy their freedom; their natural inferiority was not assumed. ⁹⁴

These differences mitigate the offensiveness of ancient slavery; however, slavery in any form is an offense to human personhood. When one human being owns another human, it is inherently degrading. Still, it is important to distinguish the slavery of New Testament times from the slavery that ravaged our own country not so many years ago. ⁹⁵

In the first century, slavery was an assumed part of the Greco-Roman culture. In some places slaves may have made up one-third of the population. ⁹⁶ This sector of the population was constantly in flux. At any given time, there would be some individuals selling themselves into slavery and others being manumitted. Tenney Frank estimates that 500,000 manumissions took place between the years 81 B.C. and 49 B.C. , an average of almost 16,000 per year. ⁹⁷ The anticipation of being released was an incentive for slaves, something for which they hoped and worked. Bartchy says, “Thus, rather than leading to the gradual dissolution of the slave system, frequent manumissions encouraged its smooth functioning.” ⁹⁸

The way the system worked, with its rate of releasing slaves, was also a factor that kept any ideas of abolition from entering the scene. When there were slave uprisings, they were not intended to overthrow the institution of slavery, but simply to gain individual freedom. ⁹⁹ Apparently only two groups objected to the institution of slavery in the first century. ¹⁰⁰ Josephus says of the Essenes, “They neither bring wives into the community nor do they own slaves, since they believe that the latter practice contributes to injustice and that the former opens the way to a source of dissension.” ¹⁰¹ And Philo says of the Therapeutae:

They do not have slaves to wait upon them as they consider that the ownership of servants is entirely against nature. For nature has borne all men to be free, but the wrongful and covetous acts of some who pursued that source of evil, inequality, have imposed their yoke and invested the stronger with power over the weaker. ¹⁰²

But in the culture at large, slavery was an accepted norm. Abolition of the institution was hardly conceivable. Bartchy says, “If someone in Greece or Rome in the middle of the first century A.D. had cried, ‘Slaves of the world unite!’ he would have attracted only the curious.” ¹⁰³

Slavery, with its benefits and abuses, was a fundamental aspect of the first-century culture in which the New Testament was written. Now we turn to those writings.

New Testament Commands to Slaves

Here I will interact with the five passages in which slaves are directly exhorted to obey, respect, and be subject to their masters: Ephesians 6:5–8, Colossians 3:22–4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9–10, and 1 Peter 2:18–25. A discussion of some other relevant passages will be found later in this chapter.

In each passage the imperative is addressed to slaves. Paul uses the term douloi , whereas Peter uses oiketai to refer to slaves. ¹⁰⁴ In Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22, Paul uses the imperative form of the verb hypakouō in his exhortation for slaves to obey their masters. In 1 Peter 2:18 and Titus 2:9, hypotassō is used. ¹⁰⁵ First Timothy 6:1 does not specifically enjoin obedience or submission, but exhorts slaves to “regard ( hēgeomai ) their own masters as worthy of all honor.”

The mere fact that slaves are addressed directly is significant. In this way Paul and Peter implicitly recognize the personhood of slaves and grant them the dignity of moral responsibility. Andrew Lincoln makes this observation in his comments on Ephesians 6:5–9: “In a fashion unprecedented in the traditional discussions of household management, slaves are appealed to directly. They are treated as ethically responsible persons who are as fully members of the Christian community as their masters.” ¹⁰⁶

Ground for Obedience

Attached to each of these imperatives is either a ground clause or a purpose clause. In three of the passages we find a ground clause supporting the command given to slaves. The phrase eidotes hoti (“knowing that”) introduces the ground clause in Ephesians 6:8 and Colossians 3:24. ¹⁰⁷ In each case, Paul instructs slaves to obey their masters, and he describes the nature of the obedience. He makes reference to working as to the Lord/Christ and from the heart. This is contrasted with working for men, as men-pleasers. The causal participle ( eidotes ) follows, indicating a ground for the command. Paul commands obedience, and then gives a reason for this obedience ( because you know . . .). The content of this knowledge that Paul is using to motivate slaves is the truth that the Lord will reward their faithful service. ¹⁰⁸ Future reward is the ground for the command. In Ephesians he emphasizes the positive elements of the coming judgment, namely, that those who do good will be rewarded. In Colossians, Paul emphasizes both the positive and negative aspects of the coming judgment, thus communicating both an incentive for obedience and a warning against disobedience.

In both of these passages Paul gives commands to masters as well as slaves, and in this way challenges the perception that masters had absolute rights over their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Indeed, Paul admonishes masters to treat their slaves “justly and fairly” (Col. 4:1) and to stop threatening (Eph. 6:9). In both verses these commands are grounded in the fact that masters ( kurioi ) and slaves alike have a heavenly Master ( kurios ). Lincoln says, “As in the equivalent Colossians passage, here too the focus on Christ as Lord relativizes the social distinction between slaves and masters.” ¹⁰⁹

Like the commands to slaves in Ephesians and Colossians, 1 Peter 2:18–25 contains a ground clause that follows the imperative. Here, servants are commanded to be subject to their masters with all respect. Then the instruction goes a step further. Servants must be subject not only to masters who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unjust. The ground clause is introduced by gar . The NASB renders verse 19 in this way: “For this finds favor [ charis ¹¹⁰ ], if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.” Peter is indicating here that God will look kindly on those who suffer unjustly while doing good. The use of charis at the beginning of verse 19 and the end of verse 20 forms an inclusio, indicating that these two verses are closely related and should be interpreted together. ¹¹¹ Suffering unjustly while doing good is a gracious thing, that is, something that finds favor before God (vv. 19, 20b). But, in contrast, there is no credit ( kleos ) for one who suffers because of his own wrongdoing (v. 20a). This contrast sheds light on the meaning of charis in this context, for charis and kleos are used synonymously in the contrasting statements. While there is no credit when one suffers for wrongdoing, there is credit/favor for suffering while doing good. These verses convey an incentive similar to that found in Ephesians 6:8 and Colossians 3:24. Peter exhorts servants to endure in their suffering and to continue to do good, because God will look kindly on such conduct. ¹¹²

Kevin Giles correctly observes “a repeated Christological appeal” in these three passages. ¹¹³ In Ephesians 6:5–8, slaves are exhorted to serve as slaves of Christ, as to the Lord. In Colossians 3:22–25, similarly, they are to obey their masters, fearing the Lord, and working as for the Lord. And 1 Peter 2:18–25 provides an extended illustration of suffering unjustly by describing Christ’s suffering. Based on these observations, Giles says, “The reasons given for slaves to be subordinate are more consistent and weightier than those to women.” ¹¹⁴ This is a bold and provocative statement. However, he fails to see that the references to Christ are related to the behavior of slaves and not to the institution of slavery. Neither Paul nor Peter is seeking to undergird the practice of slavery in their references to Christ. Rather, they are concerned to instruct individuals on how to conduct themselves in a manner that pleases the Lord.

In 1 Peter, suffering is a major theme throughout the letter, slavery being only the first mention of it. I. Howard Marshall makes this point, citing the occurrences of paschō in 1 Peter (2:19, 20, 23; 3:14, 17, 18; 4:1, 15, 19; 5:10) as well as the noun form pathēma (1:11; 4:13; 5:1, 9). ¹¹⁵ In addition, Marshall says of 1 Peter 2:21–25, “In many ways this paragraph, which stands virtually at the center of the letter, is its theological center.” ¹¹⁶ This is noteworthy because Peter is doing far more here than providing an example for slaves who are suffering unjustly. As Marshall puts it so poignantly, “Christ cannot be an example of suffering for us to follow unless he is first of all the Savior whose sufferings were endured on our behalf.” ¹¹⁷ In these verses (21–25), Peter rises above the particulars of slaves and masters to the overarching story of salvation—that Christ suffered for us so that we might follow in his steps in whatever suffering may face us. ¹¹⁸

A similar train of thought is repeated in 1 Peter 3:13–22. Here the application is wider, referring generally to any kind of persecution encountered by Christians. The encouragement is similar: “But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed” (v. 14), “For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil” (v. 17). The exhortations are similar: “in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy” and make your defense “with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience” (vv. 15–16). And the theological analogy which follows is also similar: “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God . . .” (v. 18). Based on the reasoning of Giles, it seems that we would need to understand this as a weighty theological basis for any societal structure that promotes the persecution or slandering of Christians. ¹¹⁹ But this is clearly not Peter’s intent. The point is to provide suffering Christians with an appropriate perspective on their trials. The same is true in 1 Peter 2:18–25.

William Webb makes a point similar to that of Giles, but in a far more nuanced way. Webb refers to these passages (Eph. 6:5–9; Col. 3:22–4:1; 1 Peter 2:18–25) in his discussion of theological analogies. He mentions the use of these texts by slavery proponents and concludes, “If slavery should be assessed as cultural within Scripture (a position developed above), then obviously theological analogy at times accompanies biblical instructions with a dominant cultural component.” ¹²⁰ Theological analogy is not conclusive in determining whether a text is transcultural. The problem, though, is that Webb fails to notice significant differences between the various theological analogies he discusses. The next chapter will discuss the theological analogies found in Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11, and I will further interact with this issue in chapter 5. The point to be observed here is that the analogy between obeying one’s earthly master and obeying the heavenly Master is not meant to give a theological grounding for the institution of slavery. Likewise, the illustration of Christ’s suffering is not given as a basis for slavery. Rather, these analogies are drawn to illustrate the kind of behavior that pleases the Lord, and these instructions are addressed to believers facing various forms of persecution.

Purpose of Obedience

In 1 Timothy 6:1 and Titus 2:10, Paul expands on the imperatives, not with ground clauses but with purpose clauses. Each begins with the conjunction hina , and in each case the purpose is related to the reputation of Christianity. It is stated negatively in 1 Timothy 6:1: “so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.” Titus 2:10 presents it positively: “so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.” ¹²¹

In 1 Timothy 6:1–2, Paul addresses slaves in general (v. 1) and then narrows his focus to slaves who have Christian masters (v. 2). ¹²² It is in the first statement that the purpose clause is found. All slaves are commanded to respect their masters so as to protect the reputation of Christianity. It would be a terrible reflection on the Christian faith if many who claimed to be Christians were also known as rebellious and disrespectful slaves. Paul warns that insubordinate behavior will bring slander on God’s name and Christian teaching. ¹²³ William Mounce says of the purpose clause,

Slaves are to respect their masters not because slavery is a proper institution or because Paul supposedly has no social conscience. Rather, the success of the gospel is more significant than the lot of any one individual, and therefore slaves should behave in a way that does not bring reproach on the gospel. ¹²⁴

In this way we should not assume that instructions to slaves are an implicit endorsement of slavery itself. Paul was not primarily concerned to change the societal structures around him. ¹²⁵ He was most certainly concerned to protect the reputation of the gospel.

In the next verse, Paul adds a comment to those slaves who were privileged to have Christian masters. In such a situation, it was tempting for a slave to take advantage of the equality in Christ he shared with his master. Paul must have been aware that this very thing was happening in the Ephesian church, hence these commands. ¹²⁶ There are two imperatives addressed to these slaves. First, negatively, they are not to be disrespectful. This instruction is followed by a hoti clause, which either cites the reason for the slaves’ disrespect or grounds the command. ¹²⁷ These slaves were exploiting the fact that they and their masters were equal in Christ, but Paul says just the opposite should be true.

The second imperative contrasts with the first and puts forth the positive command. Rather than disrespecting one’s master, slaves must serve all the more. This imperative, like the first, is followed by a hoti clause. ¹²⁸ And, like the first hoti clause, there is ambiguity here as well. ¹²⁹ On the one hand, the clause could refer to the benefit that Christian masters bestow on their slaves. This reading would accord with the use of euergesia (good service), which is something given by a superior to an inferior. This reading also fits with the more common meaning of antilambanō , which means “devote oneself to.” ¹³⁰ Thus, the masters are seen as those who are devoted to the well-being of their slaves. ¹³¹ It is difficult, though, to discern how the clause is functioning in the context if taken this way. ¹³²

On the other hand, the clause could refer to the benefit that the masters receive from their slaves. Another possible meaning of antilambanō is “to benefit by.” ¹³³ This meaning seems to fit better with the logic of the verse, for the benefit can be seen as a further comment on the command to serve all the more. ¹³⁴ If taken this way, Paul is making a surprising statement about the status and worth of slaves. He makes the slave the benefactor, rather than the master, and thus turns a common perception on its head. ¹³⁵

Regardless of which reading one chooses, it should be noted that Paul views Christian slaves and Christian masters as brothers. Thus, he brings together individuals whose social status would have set them worlds apart. He does not tell slaves to forsake their status as slaves. Rather, he tells them to regard their masters as worthy of all honor, and he instructs those with believing masters to serve all the more. He does not attack the institution of slavery. But something even deeper and more radical is happening here. In Christ, slaves and masters become brothers.

In Titus 2, Paul gives instructions for various groups of individuals. He addresses older men in verse 2, older women in verse 3 (and their ministry to the younger women, vv. 4–5), and younger men in verse 6. He then instructs Titus personally in verses 7–8, and lastly addresses slaves in verses 9–10. Three times in this passage, Paul states the purposes for which Christians must adhere to these commands. The first is connected to the instructions for younger women. Paul bestows on the older women the responsibility of teaching and training the younger women to be godly wives and mothers. The first purpose is stated, in verse 5: “that the word of God may not be reviled.” Second, in verses 7–8, Paul states that Titus’s behavior must be exemplary “so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.” Third, in verse 10, Paul undergirds his instructions to slaves with another purpose clause, this time stated positively: “so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.” ¹³⁶

Everything that the slave does has the potential of communicating something about Christian teaching. If the slave who claims to be a Christian is rebellious and disrespectful, this will reflect negatively on the gospel. But if the slave is submissive and pleasing and honest, these characteristics will “adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.” It is noteworthy that these individuals who are lowest in society have great potential to display the transforming power of the Christian faith. Indeed, it may be their low position that increases this potential, since their predicament would naturally incline one toward resentment and rebellion rather than respectful submission. ¹³⁷

These passages fall under the umbrella of Webb’s fourth criterion: “Purpose/Intent Statements.” In determining whether a text applies today, we must ask ourselves whether the original intent can still be fulfilled. ¹³⁸ He says of the slavery issue, “In our context the continued practice of slavery-type submission no longer achieves the stated purpose of winning others to Christ.” ¹³⁹ Webb’s further comments on how we must apply the abiding principles found in these instructions are helpful. “Clearly the underlying principle of showing deference/respect in order to win people (employers) continues to have transcultural relevance.” ¹⁴⁰

However, when Webb argues that wifely submission, like slavery, no longer fulfills its New Testament purpose (1 Peter 3:1; Titus 2:5), ¹⁴¹ he has presented a subjective argument. It then falls to each of us to determine whether a husband will find his wife’s submission attractive or repulsive. Webb assumes that “unilateral-type submission and obedience of a wife toward her unbelieving husband, adorned by her addressing him as ‘master/lord,’ generally fails to fulfill the mission statements within the biblical text.” ¹⁴² Put this way, it is hard to disagree with him, for we are all uncomfortable with the prospect of demanding that wives speak to their husbands as “master/lord.” But the mention of Sarah’s obedience to Abraham, “calling him lord,” is simply part of the Old Testament illustration from which Peter is drawing. He does not explicitly command women to call their husbands “lord.” Even if he did, it would be reasonable to view it as a cultural component of the passage. The fact that there is a component of the text that we would not apply in the same way today does not allow us to disregard the clear principles taught here. And when we look at the principles of wifely submission, respectful and pure conduct, and the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, it is not at all clear that these things would repulse an unbelieving husband. For this reason, I conclude that the purpose/intent criterion is not determinative for our view of slavery or the submission of wives. The debate must center on other aspects of the relevant passages. ¹⁴³

Other Relevant Passages

We have seen from these passages that the New Testament does not leave the institution of slavery untouched. The commands to slaves and masters do not reinforce the status quo , but rather undermine it in significant ways. While it is true that the New Testament does not condemn slavery, it must be acknowledged that it does not endorse it either. It simply assumes the reality of slavery, and speaks to individuals in whatever situation they find themselves. The instructions to these individuals would have challenged the cultural norms of the day, ¹⁴⁴ and if heeded, would radically transform the master-slave relationship. ¹⁴⁵

In addition to the passages discussed above, we find other texts that might have had a transforming effect on the Christian’s perception of slavery. The following passages are hotly debated, and they might or might not indicate an antislavery sentiment in the New Testament. However, the point remains that the New Testament does not endorse or command slavery. As in the previous passages, we find that slavery is an assumed reality, and one that is being transformed by the power of the gospel.

Philemon

In this personal letter, Paul appeals to Philemon on behalf of the runaway slave Onesimus. Apparently, Onesimus had fled from his master Philemon ¹⁴⁶ (v. 15) and had even stolen from Philemon (vv. 18–19). Onesimus escaped to Rome (or Ephesus), ¹⁴⁷ where he somehow crossed paths with the great apostle, who was in prison, and Onesimus was converted under his ministry. Now Paul sends him back to his master, pleading with Philemon to forgive the offenses and receive his slave back graciously.

What Paul intends to communicate between the lines is debated. Possibly, Paul has in mind Onesimus’s release in order to continue serving him in his imprisonment. ¹⁴⁸ Or maybe his desire was simply that Philemon would manumit Onesimus for the purpose of Christian ministry in general. ¹⁴⁹ It is also possible that Paul just wanted Philemon to spare Onesimus any punishment that could have been inflicted on him because of his offenses. ¹⁵⁰ What is clear is that Paul desires Onesimus to be received back by Philemon with graciousness and forgiveness. He beseeches Philemon to “receive him as you would receive me” (v. 17). Then he leaves the details to Philemon’s discretion. “Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say” (v. 21). In this way, he allows Philemon to maintain his honor ¹⁵¹ and to extend grace and mercy of his “own accord” (v. 14).

Paul’s letter to Philemon is not a treatise on slavery, much less a plea for its abolition. ¹⁵² As seen above, it is not even clear that Paul wanted Philemon to free Onesimus. J. B. Lightfoot writes, “It is a remarkable fact that St. Paul in this epistle stops short of any positive injunction. The word ‘emancipation’ seems to be trembling on his lips, and yet he does not once utter it.” ¹⁵³ Lightfoot goes on to say that Paul “tells [Philemon] to do very much more than emancipate his slave, but this one thing he does not directly enjoin.” ¹⁵⁴ For Webb, this letter represents a “seed idea,” meaning it subtly challenges this social structure and points beyond it. ¹⁵⁵

In this letter, Paul speaks to the relationship of a particular slave and a particular master, and his entreaty to the master is one that erases the barrier of status between the two. Paul’s desire is that Onesimus return to his master “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother” (v. 16). In this way, without confronting the institution of slavery directly, he does undermine it by setting master and slave on equal footing. ¹⁵⁶

Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 3:11

These verses provide additional examples of the leveling effect of being in Christ. ¹⁵⁷ Paul declares that these deeply entrenched social divisions are transcended by our unity in Christ. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 12:13, “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” And in Colossians 3:11, “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” In these statements, Harris says, “The New Testament represents a direct challenge to the fundamental pillar on which slavery was built—the belief that the ‘slave-free’ division was natural and necessary in both principle and practice within any well-ordered society.” ¹⁵⁸ For Webb, these verses fall under the category of “seed ideas.” ¹⁵⁹

1 Timothy 1:10

In this vice list, Paul condemns “enslavers” ( ESV ), “kidnappers” ( NASB ), or “slave traders” ( NIV ). He includes this category in a list of sinners for whom the law is still in effect. The word used here, andrapodistēs , is a New Testament hapax legomenon . It refers to “one who acquires [persons] for use by others, slave-dealer, kidnapper.” ¹⁶⁰ The vice list alludes to various commandments in the Decalogue, and this vice is connected to the prohibition against stealing (the eighth commandment). ¹⁶¹ Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7 both condemn stealing and selling persons. Murray Harris concludes, “While both Testaments assume the practice of slavery, both repudiate kidnapping and dealing in slaves.” ¹⁶² Webb apparently agrees with this assessment, for he cites Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7, and 1 Timothy 1:10 as examples of his first criterion: “preliminary movement.” ¹⁶³

J. Albert Harrill argues that the use of andrapodistēs in 1 Timothy 1:10 is a stereotype used to criticize the opponents. It does not, in his view, undermine slavery in the slightest. It simply exploits a commonly held prejudice against slave traders, who had the reputation of being dishonest and immoral. Harrill uses the following analogy to illustrate his point:

Ancient slave dealers enjoyed a reputation similar to that of used-car sellers today: although the used-car seller functions as a standard example of an untrustworthy and unsavory person, users of the example do not mean to condemn the selling of used cars in general or even to suggest that all used-car sellers are bad. ¹⁶⁴

He bases his conclusion on a thorough study of ancient literature, detailing the vices of those involved in trading slaves and the derogatory way in which andrapodistēs was used. ¹⁶⁵ Therefore, rather than seeing this verse as undermining the institution of slavery, Harrill states that it “reinforces cultural stereotypes present in the ideology of ancient slavery and in the ancient Christian congregation that received this letter.” ¹⁶⁶

Therefore, it might not be legitimate to use this verse as evidence that the New Testament opposes slavery. On the other hand, it certainly says nothing in support of slavery.

1 Corinthians 7:21

This verse has been the fodder for much exegetical debate. The discussion centers on the question of what object is to be understood in the case of ellipsis at the end of the verse. Paul writes, “Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)” The phrase, “avail yourself of the opportunity,” translates only two Greek words, mallon chrēsai . Three interpretations of this verse are defended by scholars, and each supplies a different object for chrēsai . On one reading, the verse is seen as an encouragement to slaves to gain their freedom if it is offered to them. Thus the ESV , as quoted above. On this interpretation, “freedom” is the understood object, which is found in the protasis of the conditional sentence. The ESV “avail yourself of the opportunity” is referring to the opportunity of being manumitted.

In support of the “freedom” reading, it is argued that this would be the naturally understood object, since it is found in the preceding clause. ¹⁶⁷ The aorist imperative ( chrēsai ) is also used in support of this reading, for the present tense would be expected if the verse was instructing slaves to remain in their current condition. ¹⁶⁸ On this interpretation “but” has its usual adversative sense, ¹⁶⁹ “if” ( ei kai ) is emphatic, ¹⁷⁰ and mallon is elative/intensive. ¹⁷¹ Thus, “ But ( alla ) if indeed ( ei kai ) you can gain your freedom, by all means ( mallon ) use [your freedom].” Arguments from context include the observation that this clause obviously deviates from the pattern of the other instructions in the passage, and therefore it should be read as a genuine exception. ¹⁷² This view is persuasive, but it is not critical to my argument. Webb also interprets the verse in this way, listing it as a “seed idea.” ¹⁷³

The second interpretation finds the opposite to be the case. Paul is not encouraging manumission, but is rather encouraging slaves to remain in their position, even if freedom is offered. So the NAB (New American Bible), “Were you a slave when your call came? Give it no thought. Even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery.” On this reading, “slavery” (found in the question at the beginning of v. 21) is supplied as the object of chrēsai . Here, alla ei kai is concessive, ¹⁷⁴ and mallon is adversative with respect to becoming free. ¹⁷⁵ Thus, “Even if ( alla ei kai ) you can gain your freedom, instead ( mallon ) use [your slavery].”

This view places the verse in the context of the passage, not as an exception but as a reinforcement of the theme, namely, “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called” (v. 20, also v. 24). ¹⁷⁶ Also, the gar of the following verse is used in support of this reading. “For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord” (v. 22). This verse is seen as the ground for remaining in slavery. The slave can remain in physical slavery, because he has been set free spiritually. ¹⁷⁷

Finally, a third alternative has been offered. Scott Bartchy translates the verse in this way: “Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t worry about it. But if, indeed, you become manumitted, by all means [as a freedman] live according to [God’s calling.]” ¹⁷⁸ He supplies the object, “God’s calling,” which is referred to in verses 17, 20, and 24, ¹⁷⁹ and he finds in Josephus an alternative use of the verb chraomai (“to live according to”). ¹⁸⁰

Why Does the New Testament Not Condemn the Institution of Slavery?

The question of why the New Testament does not explicitly condemn the institution of slavery is a difficult one, and it may not find a fully satisfying answer. One wishes for a clear statement condemning slavery, but it cannot be found. Kevin Giles and others would answer this question with the assertion that the NT, in fact, endorses slavery. There is no condemnation of slavery because the NT writers substantially agreed with the cultural practices around them.

But, as I have argued, the New Testament does not endorse slavery. There is no clear condemnation of the institution, but neither is there any clear commendation of it. There are also details of the cultural situation and the nature of the early church that are suggestive of why we do not find any explicit denunciation of slavery. For instance, as mentioned above, there was already a system for the manumission of slaves. Slaves would work for several years and would eventually earn their freedom. Therefore, the total abolition of slavery was not an urgent burden on the hearts of the first-century Christians, partly, it seems, because of the way the system worked.

There is also the fact that slavery was such a predominant feature of their society. It was hard to imagine life without it. Slavery was a significant component of how the economy worked. Even if some envisaged a society without slavery, the fledgling church was in no place to abolish it. Such a movement by the church would have been soundly rejected, and the early Christians would have been seen merely as a rebellious group that undermined the structures of society. ¹⁸¹ Thus, any attempt to abolish slavery would have been counterproductive to the main mission of the church. ¹⁸²

This point leads to a more fundamental reason for the New Testament’s absence of a direct assault on slavery, namely, that Christianity is not a religion of social revolution. The direct impact of the gospel is on the individual human heart. That is where the transformation begins, not in social institutions. Murray Harris writes,

If Christianity is viewed as basically a movement of social reform, then this silence regarding slavery is indeed surprising, if not culpable. But Christianity in its essence is concerned with the transformation of character and conduct rather than with the reformation of societal structures. . . . The principal change sought is in the individual, and the secondary in society, through transformed individuals. ¹⁸³

These various reasons (some pragmatic, some based on conviction) give us hints as to why we do not find in the New Testament a direct attack on the institution of slavery.

It is also helpful to compare slavery with other evils that the Bible accommodated but never endorsed. Divorce is one example. Deuteronomy 24:1–4 gives instructions on how a man should go about divorcing his wife if “she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her.” These instructions do not condemn divorce, but neither is there an endorsement of the practice. Jesus’ words to the Pharisees in Matthew 19 make it clear that divorce is an accommodation to the hardness of the human heart: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). Divorce is permitted, but not endorsed. ¹⁸⁴

A related issue is polygamy, a practice that was permitted and yet never endorsed. We find many instances of polygamy in the Bible, even among individuals who are praiseworthy in other respects (i.e., Abraham and David). But the fact that these men had more than one wife does not constitute an endorsement of polygamy. ¹⁸⁵ Like divorce, it was permitted even though it was contrary to God’s design for marriage. The issues of divorce and polygamy are not identical to the issue of slavery, but they at least indicate there are practices that the Bible accommodates without endorsing.

The question of why the New Testament does not condemn the institution of slavery is not an easy one, and it has no simple answers. However, the question is not made easier by the assertion that patriarchy is an additional evil that the biblical writers failed to condemn. This position does not resolve the dilemma, but rather complicates it further. The question expands to, “Why does the NT fail to condemn the institution of slavery, and why does the NT also fail to condemn patriarchy?” Of course, the writers who hold to this view have thoughtful responses to these questions, but my point is simply to show that the question confronts all of us, to varying degrees. The discussion of these questions will continue in greater detail in the chapters dealing with hermeneutics. ¹⁸⁶

Conclusion

This survey of the NT statements concerning slavery has examined the grounds and purposes that undergird the biblical instructions to slaves. I have also commented on other relevant passages and addressed the question of why we do not find in the NT a clear condemnation of slavery. While the New Testament does not condemn slavery, it also seems evident that it does not commend it. The instructions to slaves and to masters, and the other passages that deal with slavery, do not enshrine the institution of slavery as something that is ordained by God. Rather, the New Testament writers assume the reality of slavery and speak to masters and slaves alike in their specific roles. Kevin Giles incorrectly asserts that there is a strong “biblical” case for slavery. The issue is much more complex than that. An additional complex question, which Giles and others address, is how the NT statements concerning slavery are similar and/or dissimilar to the NT statements concerning women. In the next chapter I will conduct a similar study of the women’s passages, and in chapter 4 compare and contrast the two.

3

New Testament

Statements

concerning Women

T his chapter examines the women’s passages in the same way the previous chapter examined the slavery passages, interacting here with seven passages in which exhortations are addressed to women/wives. The discussion is organized by looking at the exhortations that are supported by a ground clause (Eph. 5:22–33; Col. 3:18–19; 1 Tim. 2:9–15; 1 Cor. 11:2–16; 1 Cor. 14:33b-35), and then briefly looking at those exhortations that are followed by a purpose clause (1 Peter 3:1–7; Titus 2:3–5). ¹⁸⁷ In this way, the present chapter will mirror the previous one.

Since a basic assumption of the trajectory hermeneutic is the parallel between the women’s passages and the slavery passages, it is important to closely examine the flow of thought in each set of texts. The fruit of this exegesis will be seen in the next chapter, which will compare and contrast the women’s passages and the slavery passages. If it can be shown that the two sets of texts are significantly different, then a basic assumption of the redemptive-movement hermeneutic will be undermined.

New Testament Commands to Women

In six of the seven texts, gunē (in either singular or plural form) is used for the person(s) addressed. In certain contexts the term refers to wives, and in others it refers to women in general. Titus 2:3–5 does not use the term gunē , but instructs older women ( presbutidas ) to train younger women ( tas neas ) in various aspects of their lives.

A form of the verb hupotassō (submit) is found in five of the passages. First Timothy 2:9–15 lacks the verb form, but contains the noun form hupotagē (submission) in verse 11. First Corinthians 11:2–16 contains neither the verb nor the noun, but rather the instruction is to cover one’s head. Still, the passage has to do with the differing roles of men and women, the covering (or uncovering) of one’s head being an outward symbol of those differences.

The relevant instructions are found either as an imperative (Col. 3:18; 1 Cor. 11:6; 1 Cor. 14:33–35 [contains 3 imperatives]; 1 Tim. 2:11), or in the form of a participle (Eph. 5:21; 1 Peter 3:1; Titus 2:5), or as an indicative with infinitives (1 Tim. 2:12). Women are exhorted to submit to their own husbands (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:4) or to be submissive in the context of the church (1 Tim. 2:11; 1 Cor. 11:6 [by covering their heads]; 1 Cor. 14:34).

Ground for Obedience

Accompanying each of the relevant instructions is either a ground clause or a purpose clause. I understand five of them to be ground clauses. Two are introduced by gar (1 Cor. 11:8; 1 Tim. 2:13), one is introduced by hoti (Eph. 5:23), and two are introduced by comparative conjunctions ( hōs in Col. 3:18; kathōs in 1 Cor. 14:34). ¹⁸⁸

References to Creation: 1 Timothy 2:9–15

First Timothy 2:13–14 and 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 each make references to creation in connection with the instructions given to women. ¹⁸⁹ In 1 Timothy 2 the instruction is given in verses 11–12. Paul uses an imperative in verse 11, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.” Verse 12, then, uses an indicative with two infinitives, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.” The verse concludes with another infinitive, “rather, she is to remain quiet,” which reiterates the statement of verse 11.

These instructions have been debated at much length. ¹⁹⁰ For the purposes of this study I will not fully discuss the various interpretations of verses 11–12. This is unnecessary because the burden of the trajectory hermeneutic is not to contest the meaning of verses 11–12, but rather to argue that Paul’s instruction was limited to first-century Ephesus. ¹⁹¹ Therefore, the focus of this section will be to examine how verses 13–14 are related to the instructions of verses 11–12.

The conjunction gar introduces verses 13–14 and connects them to verses 11–12. ¹⁹² Some argue that gar functions in an explanatory sense here. ¹⁹³ The causal meaning, however, is much more common, ¹⁹⁴ and the sequence of imperative followed by a reason (introduced by gar ) is well attested in the Pastorals. ¹⁹⁵ It is also difficult to understand how verse 13 might function as an example. ¹⁹⁶

William Webb apparently assumes the causal sense of gar in verse 13, for he discusses it under the heading “Basis in Original Creation.” He defines his seventh criterion in this way: “A component of a text may be transcultural, if it is rooted in the original-creation material and, more specifically, its creative order.” ¹⁹⁷ Of 1 Timothy 2:13, he writes, “On the grounds of this creative order he grants men, not women, the prominent/authoritative teaching positions in the church.” ¹⁹⁸ It is important to note Webb’s assumption that verse 13 is a ground for verses 11–12, because most egalitarians argue that it is explanatory. ¹⁹⁹

Verses 13–14 make two complementary points. First, in verse 13, Paul points to the fact that Adam was formed before Eve. His reference is to the account in Genesis 2, where the man was formed ( eplasthē ). The word is used four times in Genesis ( LXX ), all in chapter 2. ²⁰⁰ Paul uses the passive form in 1 Timothy 2:13. ²⁰¹ Thus, Paul cites the order of creation to ground his instruction in verse 12. God formed Adam first, and he subsequently formed the woman from Adam’s rib as a “helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18, 20). These aspects of the creation order indicate the differing roles of men and women.

Verse 14, then, refers to the events of Genesis 3. The sentence is structured in a manner similar to verse 13, with Adam mentioned in the first part of the verse and the woman mentioned in the second part. The connection to Genesis 3 is found in the reference to deception. Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. In Genesis 3:13 ( LXX ), the only place in Genesis where this same word for “deceived” is found, it appears in the words of Eve. When the Lord God questioned her, she responded, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” In both verse 13 and verse 14 it seems Paul is drawing our attention not merely to a couple words, but to the whole context of Genesis 2–3. ²⁰² In those chapters we see the order of creation (Adam formed first) and the order of the fall (woman deceived first).

We cannot take Paul’s statement that “Adam was not deceived” in an absolute sense. In Romans 5:12, responsibility for the fall is placed squarely on Adam (also 1 Cor. 15:21–22). This, along with the “first, then” order of verse 13, makes it likely that the same order is implied in verse 14. It is not that Adam was not deceived, but that he was not deceived first . ²⁰³ The serpent, cunning as he is, approached the helpmate rather than the God-ordained leader in the relationship.

Traditionally, verse 14 has been taken to mean that women are more easily deceived than men. ²⁰⁴ Daniel Doriani follows this traditional understanding, that women are in some sense more easily deceived. However, he does not attribute this to a deficient intellectual capacity for women, but rather to the different proclivities of men and women. ²⁰⁵ Thomas Schreiner, in the first edition of Women in the Church , agreed. ²⁰⁶ But in the second edition Schreiner states in an endnote, “I accepted Doriani’s view in the first edition of this book. But it seems that this view also strays from the text, even if one agrees that such differences exist between men and women. If Paul argued that women were deceived because of innate dispositions, the goodness of God’s creative work is called into question.” ²⁰⁷

Webb discusses the view of Doriani and Schreiner as presented in the first edition of Women in the Church . He commends them for their fine exegesis and agrees that “the traditional rendering is the most supportable reading of the text.” ²⁰⁸ But he goes on to criticize Doriani and Schreiner for their modification of the traditional view. Webb concludes by saying that he agrees “both with the historic and the (new) revised-historic view of 1 Timothy 2:14 that Paul is saying that ‘women are more easily deceived than men,’ ” but that the situation is different today. ²⁰⁹ It was true in the past that women were more easily deceived than men, but the social factors that produced such a reality have changed. “So the text was suitable and accurate in its day due to cultural factors of an associative nature. Applying 1 Timothy 2:14 today, however, requires that we move up the ladder of abstraction and work with the underlying transcultural principle: seek teachers and leaders who are not easily deceived ” ²¹⁰ (emphasis original).

Elsewhere, Webb develops this point further from 1 Timothy 4:7, where Paul warns of “old wives’ tales” ( NIV ), “fables fit only for old women” ( NASB ). ²¹¹ Webb sees this as additional evidence that “ancient women were far more vulnerable to myths and fables than was the case with men.” ²¹² It certainly seems that women were afforded far fewer opportunities than men in the first century, including formal education. Webb states, “Many women in ancient cultures lived in a ‘small world’ of social exposure that often ranged not much further beyond the home than to the well and the marketplace. The world of older women was even smaller.” ²¹³ However, while this was generally the case, there was also much variety in the social opportunities of women. ²¹⁴ Many women enjoyed the benefits of literacy and various levels of either formal or less-formal education. ²¹⁵

Acknowledging the general gap in education between men and women, it is certainly possible that Paul’s reference to “old wives’ tales” reflects a cultural reality that many older women were given to telling fables. Paul uses two adjectives to describe the “myths,” the second ( graōdeis ) being a hapax legomenon in the New Testament. Ceslas Spicq says, “At root, these are tales or twaddle that grandmothers or nurses tell to small children: monster stories or Aesop’s fables . . . the expression then became a rhetorical characterization and a polemical insult: that which flies in the face of reason and presupposes an incredulity unworthy of an honest person.” ²¹⁶ For example, Strabo tells Eratosthenes that he is wrong for saying that “poetry is a fable-prating old wife ( graōdē ).” ²¹⁷ The stereotype must have been rooted in some aspect of reality, and therefore we must conclude that some of the elderly women were prone to passing along fables.

However, while conceding this point, Webb’s conclusion still rests on a thin foundation. First, it is not at all clear that Paul is intending to make a statement about the lack of education among women or their susceptibility to being deceived. We must remember that the comment refers specifically to older women, so it cannot be taken as a blanket statement about women. We must also consider the fact that the term was commonly used to speak of foolish prattle. Paul might or might not have been thinking of the gender aspect of the term at all. Thus, Webb’s suggestion may be an etymological fallacy, for the gender component of the verb has become less clear. ²¹⁸ The phrase “old wives’ tales” is still used today, and it would be incorrect to assume that it implies the ignorance of elderly women. It has taken on a more general connotation of superstitious beliefs. It seems that this shift was already happening somewhat in Paul’s day. Philip Towner says, “Whatever the term’s origin, it had ossified into a common saying that conveyed no intentional chauvinism.” ²¹⁹ George Knight comments that graōdeis carries no “negative overtones about either age or sex,” citing 1 Timothy 5:1 “for Paul’s own insistence that there be no negative attitudes relating to these matters.” ²²⁰ Therefore, the thesis is untenable that Paul’s reference to “old wives’ tales” implies that women are more easily deceived than men.

On the one hand, Paul recognized that some women were weak, as he refers in 2 Timothy 3:6 to the false teachers “who creep into households and capture weak women.” But he also recognized the capabilities of women to provide solid instruction for their children, as Lois and Eunice did for Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15).

This observation is related to the larger point that makes Webb’s view problematic, namely, that women are not absolutely restricted from teaching or leading. They are only restricted from teaching or exercising authority over men . If women are more easily deceived, then the logical conclusion would be to restrict them from all teaching. It is also significant that Paul’s other mention of Eve’s deception (2 Cor. 11:3) is applied to the congregation as a whole. It is not used to make a statement about women’s susceptibility to deception. ²²¹ And finally, it must be noted that Paul does not cite lack of education, or any other social factor, as the reason women should not teach or have authority over men. ²²²

To summarize, 1 Timothy 2:13–14 grounds the instruction of verses 11–12 in the order of creation. Adam was formed first, indicating his headship in marriage. Eve, the helpmate, was the first to be deceived, for the serpent undermined God’s design by approaching the helper rather than the head.

References to Creation: 1 Corinthians 11:2–16

In 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, as in 1 Timothy 2:13–14, Paul grounds his instruction with references to creation. ²²³ This passage begins by drawing an analogy for Christ’s headship over every man, man’s headship over woman, ²²⁴ and God’s headship over Christ. William Webb’s fourteenth criterion is “Basis in Theological Analogy,” which he deems inconclusive. Based on theological analogies connected to slavery, ²²⁵ monarchy, primogeniture, and right-handedness, he asserts that theological analogy does not necessarily mean that the related biblical instruction is transcultural. ²²⁶

While I do not contest the statement that theological analogy is inconclusive in determining whether a text is transcultural, I also believe that there are important differences among the theological analogies that Webb cites. In the slavery passages where a theological analogy is used (Eph. 6:5–9; Col. 3:22–4:1; 1 Peter 2:18–25), the example given is not intended as a basis for the institution of slavery. ²²⁷ Rather, examples are offered as illustrations for appropriate behavior. In contrast, the analogy found in 1 Corinthians 11:3 reveals something profound about the nature of these relationships. More than an illustration concerning behavior, this verse is a statement about reality. Of course, it has clear implications for behavior, as the passage goes on to explain, but they are built on the statement in verse 3 which provides a glimpse into the structures of the universe. I am not attempting to argue that the theological analogy, on its own, establishes the abiding application of male headship in this text, ²²⁸ but I am hoping to caution against treating the various theological analogies all in the same way. There are significant differences between the analogies used in the slavery passages and the analogies given in 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5, and we need to be attentive to those differences.

Verse 4 begins the discussion of head coverings in the context of corporate worship. Men should not cover their heads when they pray or prophecy (v. 4). Women, on the other hand, should cover their heads when they pray or prophecy (v. 5). First, Paul states the dishonor associated with a man covering his head, and a woman uncovering her head (vv. 4–5). Two imperatives are given in verse 6, contained in the two apodoses of the contrasting conditional statements. The emphasis is clearly on the imperative that concludes the verse, “let her cover her head.”

Verse 7, then, gives a ground for this imperative by pointing to the order of glory, in a way related to verse 3 and its order of headship. ²²⁹ The construction in the verse suggests it is the last phrase of verse 7 that functions as the ground for verse 6. ²³⁰ Thus, the argument is that the woman should cover her head because she is the glory of man. ²³¹

Webb points out that “in 1 Cor. 11:8–9 the ‘from’ and ‘for’ arguments are not related to a prohibition against women teaching men. Rather, they support the proposition that ‘woman is the glory of man’ (1 Cor. 11:7).” ²³² This statement concurs with what I have just stated, and I acknowledge that, unlike 1 Timothy 2, this passage does not contain an explicit prohibition against women teaching men. Webb goes on, “This proposition relates to the question of how much of a woman’s beauty/glory should be visible in a worship setting—an issue of modesty.” ²³³ Webb seems to be missing the force of verse 7, for the issue at stake is more than just modesty, as shown by the references to the distinctions between men and women throughout the passage. More than relating to the question of modesty, these verses strongly assert, and provide a basis for, male headship. Webb concedes this point, “for the sake of discussion,” and therefore the argument turns to whether Paul’s rationale transcends culture. ²³⁴

The reference to the man as the image ( eikōn ) and glory ( doxa ) of God alludes to the creation of mankind in Genesis 1. The LXX uses the term eikōna twice in Genesis 1:26–27: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image ( eikōna ), after our likeness. . . . in the image ( eikōna ) of God he created him; male and female he created them.” ²³⁵ Paul’s use of eikōn in 1 Corinthians 11:7 serves as a prelude to the more significant term, doxa . It is doxa , not eikōn , that he repeats in the next phrase, “but woman is the glory of man.” ²³⁶

Here the OT background shifts from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2. ²³⁷ Paul states that “woman is the glory of man,” and then in verses 8–9 he gives an explanation of this assertion, which, in turn, supports the command that the woman cover her head (v. 6). Paul highlights two important components of the creation account in Genesis 2. First of all, “For man is not from woman, but woman from man.” Paul makes the same point in 1 Timothy 2:13: “Adam was formed first, then Eve.” ²³⁸

In the Genesis 2 account, verse 7 records the creation of the man. Then in verse 18 God declares, “It is not good that the man should be alone,” and he announces his intent to “make him a helper fit for him.” He proceeds, however, to make the animals and bring them before the man to be named. At the end of this process it is clear that the man is still alone, despite being surrounded by animals. As verse 20 bluntly states, “But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.” At this point God caused the man to sleep, took one of his ribs, and made the woman. The man states in response, “She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (v. 23). In this way, the woman is clearly “from” the man. She was created after him, and also literally from his side. Paul uses these important details from the creation account to give a basis for his point concerning male headship. And he emphasizes the point not only with a positive statement, but also with a negative one. He does not simply state that woman is from man, but begins by denying the contrary, “man is not from woman.” ²³⁹

Paul’s second statement, “For indeed man was not created for woman, but woman for man” (v. 9), is also derived directly from the details of Genesis 2. The woman was made to be “a helper fit for [the man]” (Gen. 2:18, 20). Then in Genesis 2:22, God “brought her to the man.” Again, this observation from creation is first stated negatively, and then positively. Thus, verses 8–9 demonstrate clearly and boldly from Genesis 2 God’s design for male headship.

Verses 8–9 are counterbalanced by verses 11–12. ²⁴⁰ An adversative conjunction begins verse 11. However we interpret verse 10, the point to be observed is that Paul qualifies in some sense the emphasis he has given to male headship. It is also interesting to note the reversal of the chiastic pattern. Verses 8–9 followed the pattern—man, woman, woman, man. Verses 11–12 both follow the pattern—woman, man, man, woman. ²⁴¹ The point of verses 11–12 is not pivotal to the argument of the section, ²⁴² but Paul inserts this statement of equality lest his previous statements be misunderstood or abused. ²⁴³ Here he provides a glimpse into the beautiful complexity of God’s design for men and women. While there is a certain priority in the role assigned to men, which is rooted in creation (vv. 8–9), there is also a profound interdependence that God has established between men and women (vv. 11–12). Verse 11 describes this interdependence in terms of woman not being apart from man, or man apart from woman. Then Paul adds the phrase “in the Lord.” This mutuality between man and woman is “in the Lord.”

Thus, the passage asserts not only the differences between men and women, but also their equality. But does the assertion of mutuality cancel out the differences in role? Krister Stendahl writes, “Paul’s parenthesis in the argument concerning subordination in 1 Corinthians 11 is best understood as an incidental reference to the insight expressed more fully in Galatians 3:28.” ²⁴⁴ He goes on to say, “If we are right in describing the statements of 1 Corinthians 11:11–12 and Galatians 3:28 as pointing beyond what is actually implemented in the New Testament church, then they must be allowed their freedom; and the tension which they constitute must not be absorbed or neutralized in a comprehensive and hence harmonized ‘biblical view’ ” (emphasis mine). ²⁴⁵

This idea is a key component of the redemptive-movement hermeneutic. Webb cites 1 Corinthians 11:11–12 as an example of a “seed idea,” one of Webb’s eighteen criteria for evaluating whether a component of a text is cultural. He acknowledges that “egalitarians should probably concede that Paul is not intending to overturn completely all of his previous discussion, at least not in this particular situation within the setting of Corinth and within his generation.” ²⁴⁶ Then he says,

[T]he phrase “in the Lord” (much like “in Christ”) suggests that Paul may have in mind not simply the Christian community as a redeemed people, but as a redeemed people quite apart from the social realities of the old world that they still lived in and that in some measure they still reflected in their midst. If so, 1 Corinthians 11:11–12 provides another seed idea whose potential could only be realized as the larger social climate permits (italics original). ²⁴⁷

Thus, for both Stendahl and Webb verses 11–12 do not merely provide a counterbalance to the comments on male headship, but rather they point beyond male headship to an equality “in the Lord” that will become possible as the cultural trappings of patriarchy are removed.

In an appendix and then in more detail in a later article, Webb seeks to bolster this argument by appealing to the two prepositions used in 1 Corinthians 11:12. ²⁴⁸ He points out that Paul describes woman as coming “from” ( ek ) man, while man is “through” ( dia ) woman. Based on a study of ancient embryology, Webb avers that Paul’s use of these prepositions reflects the view of his day that women were “reproductive gardens.” The common understanding was that the male provided the seed, while the woman provided the garden in which the seed grew. ²⁴⁹ Modern embryology, however, demonstrates that the woman’s role in the formation of a child is much more significant, and therefore it is not enough to speak of man simply coming “through” woman. Webb states, “if Paul were alive today, he would update his procreation point to argue that ‘man comes through ( dia ) woman and man comes from ( ek ) woman.’ ” ²⁵⁰ In the conclusion of this essay, Webb summarizes how he thinks these observations should impact our understanding of gender relationships:

The thesis of this essay is that Paul’s counterbalancing procreation argument must be given much greater weight in forging our contemporary application of gender relationships than was ever possible in Paul’s day. Contemporary application of Paul’s counterbalance argument brings an entirely new sense to creation theology—one that celebrates an ek and dia contribution for the female to the male (not simply dia ) and thus adds far more weight to the female status within male-female relationships. ²⁵¹ (emphasis original)

Because Paul’s understanding of embryology was limited by his cultural context, it must also be assumed that his understanding of gender relationships was similarly limited. Therefore, our advances in embryology ought to shed new light on 1 Corinthians 11 and point us farther beyond the particulars of what is instructed there. This is Webb’s argument concerning verse 12, which fits into his broader program of finding cultural clues that limit the application of certain texts and thus prompt us to move beyond them.

But are these assumptions justified in the text? Is it reasonable to assume that Paul’s prepositions reflect a particular understanding of embryology? It seems that the verse makes the simple point that while woman is “from” man (Gen. 2:21–22), it is also true that man is born “through” woman. In this way Paul balances what he has said about male headship with the reminder that men are also dependent on women. There is a beautiful and mysterious interdependence between the sexes.

When we ask why Paul used two different prepositions in verse 12 rather than repeating ek , we find an answer that is much simpler and more straightforward than Webb’s. Judith Gundry-Volf warns against making too much of these prepositions, and points out that the switch to dia is somewhat surprising because ek is more likely to carry the meaning of “birth from , of , by .” ²⁵² She concludes that the switch from ek to dia “maintains the difference between man and woman and avoids a flat contradiction with 11:8, which says ‘man is not from ( ek ) woman.’ ” ²⁵³ This seems to be a clear and simple explanation for these prepositions which does not impose unnecessary assumptions onto the passage. Paul very well could have stated that man is “from” woman. Indeed, he uses ek in this way elsewhere (cf. Gal. 4:4, 22–23). ²⁵⁴ But he switched to dia so as not to contradict the point he stressed just a few verses earlier.

The hermeneutical questions concerning “seed ideas” will be dealt with in chapter 5. For the purpose of this chapter, I conclude based on the above exegesis that there is not sufficient evidence within this passage to detect a “tension” ²⁵⁵ between verses 8–9 and verses 11–12. The priority of male headship grounded in the creation account need not be canceled out or relegated to obsolescence because of the statements in verses 11–12. Neither, of course, should we understand male headship to mean that women are in any way less important than men. We cannot ignore how God designed men and women to be dependent on one another.

The Law

Moving from 1 Corinthians 11 to 1 Corinthians 14, we find another admonition to women which includes a ground clause. Here Paul states that “the women should keep silent in the churches,” and he cites “the Law” as support. While some have attempted to discard these verses, this is not a convincing option. ²⁵⁶ Admittedly, it is a difficult passage, and at first reading it seems to contradict what is assumed in 1 Corinthians 11. Therefore we must look carefully into the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 14, and also the broader context of 1 Corinthians 11 (as well as 1 Tim. 2), in order to properly understand Paul’s point.

Following the initial statement concerning silence, Paul explains with a positive and negative statement. ²⁵⁷ The women are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission. Then the instruction is undergirded by a reference to the Law. Verse 35 gives further explanation, instructing the women to learn from their husbands at home. The verse ends by reiterating the main point of these verses, while adding the dimension of shame: “For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

Two significant questions arise at this point. First, in what capacity is Paul mandating the women to be silent in the churches? Is he commanding absolute silence, or is the application of the command limited in some way? In 1 Corinthians 11:5 Paul assumes and condones the practice of women praying and prophesying in church gatherings. Therefore, assuming that he would not flatly contradict himself later in the same letter, we must assume that 14:33–35 is not calling for absolute silence. The context of chapter 14 provides an important clue, for the previous verses give instructions for prophesying and weighing prophecies. Twice (prior to v. 34) we find a command to be silent. In verse 28 it pertains to speaking in tongues without an interpreter, and in verse 30 it has to do with prophesying in an orderly fashion. ²⁵⁸ It seems that these observations suggest a plausible solution, namely, that the call for silence is in reference to the weighing of prophecies (v. 29). ²⁵⁹

The second question is more pertinent to this study, and it has to do with Paul’s mention of the Law. What is Paul referring to when he cites the Law as a reason why women should not speak but be in submission? Various answers have been given. Some suggest that it could be Roman law, ²⁶⁰ others see this as rabbinic tradition, ²⁶¹ or a reference to Paul’s own “ruling.” ²⁶² However, Paul’s quotation from the Law in verse 21 (Isa. 28:11–12) makes these suggestions unlikely. It is better to understand Paul’s reference to the Law in verse 34 similarly, although it does not include a quotation.

The problem, of course, is that there is not a specific Old Testament passage that commands women to be silent. ²⁶³ But when we understand Paul’s point in these verses, we can begin to see how his reference to the Law might be functioning. For his main concern is not that women be absolutely silent. Rather, his aim is to uphold God’s ordained roles for men and women. In the context of weighing prophecies in a church setting, this would require women to be respectful of the church’s male leadership. Especially for those wives who might wish to publicly critique their own husbands, they should respectfully reserve those comments and questions for home. ²⁶⁴ Thus, it is likely that Paul has in mind something from the Old Testament that relates to this issue.

Various conclusions have been drawn as to what passage(s) Paul is alluding. Leifeld suggests that Numbers 12:1–15 might be in view, for there Miriam is punished for criticizing Moses. ²⁶⁵ Many have pointed to Genesis 3:16, the punishment given to the woman after the fall. ²⁶⁶ But this conclusion is problematic, as F. F. Bruce points out.

This is unlikely, since in MT and LXX Gen. 3:16 speaks of the woman’s instinctive inclination or passionate desire . . . towards her husband, of which he takes advantage so as to dominate her. The reference is more probably to the creation narratives of Gen. 1:26ff; 2:21ff, on which Paul has based the argument of 11:3ff. (a different argument than the present one). ²⁶⁷

In other words, Genesis 3:16 is descriptive, not prescriptive, and therefore would not serve as a basis for Paul’s instruction. ²⁶⁸

The more natural reference, as Bruce noted, would be the creation narratives of Genesis 1–2. Simon Kistemaker notes the other references to creation in 1 Corinthians (6:16 quotes Gen. 2:24; 11:8–9 alludes to Gen. 2:18, 21–23), then states, “And, last, in the current passage he refers to the role the wife must fulfill with respect to her husband, namely, to be his helper.” ²⁶⁹ If the issue at stake in this context is that of the proper roles of men and women in the worship service, a reference to God’s creation order would be apropos. And the fact that Paul referred to creation in chapter 11 would explain why he can abbreviate his remark here, simply stating, “as the Law also says.”

The parallels among 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, and 1 Timothy 2 are noteworthy. Each passage addresses the role of women. First Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14 each include references to shame ( aischron in 11:6; 14:35, found elsewhere only in Ephesians 5:12; Titus 1:11. Also, kataischunei is used in 11:4–5). First Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 are linked in the following ways: epitrepō (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12), manthanō (1 Cor. 14:35; 1 Tim. 2:11), hyupotassomai / hypotagē (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:11). The structure of these two passages is also similar. First Corinthians 14:34–35 begins with a call for silence and ends with the statement that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. In 1 Timothy 2:11–12 the mention of quietness forms an inclusio. I do not want to make too much of these connections, but they do seem to suggest a similar line of reasoning in the three passages. ²⁷⁰ If this is the case, then Paul’s reference to the Law in 1 Corinthians 14:34 would be roughly equivalent to the ground given in 1 Timothy 2:13–14 and in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9. Thus these three passages, each of them dealing with the role of women, ground this instruction in the order of creation ²⁷¹ (although I say this with less certainty in the case of 1 Cor. 14).

Male Headship/Christ’s Headship

In Ephesians 5:22, Paul instructs wives to submit ( hypotassomenoi implied from v. 21) to their own husbands. Then the ground is given, “for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church.”

As I discussed in relation to 1 Corinthians 11, Webb classifies theological analogy as an inconclusive criterion by which to determine whether a command is transcultural. With respect to Ephesians 5:22–33, he says that Paul could have used the same Christological analogy in an egalitarian sense, and he cites Philippians 2:1–11 as an example. ²⁷² I agree that theological analogy does not deem a particular instruction transcultural. However, there are some unique features to Ephesians 5 that may set it apart from the other theological analogies cited by Webb. ²⁷³

Indeed, the beginning of the passage bears similarities to other theological analogies found in the New Testament. Wives are instructed to submit to their own husbands “as to the Lord.” Just a few verses later, in Ephesians 6:5–8, slaves are instructed to obey their earthly masters “as you would Christ,” “as servants of Christ,” serving “as to the Lord.” Colossians 3:22–24, likewise, instructs slaves to obey their masters and work “as for the Lord.” ²⁷⁴

However, the way the theological analogy develops in Ephesians 5 distinguishes it from the slavery passages. First, the analogy is drawn with striking detail. Verse 22 is only the beginning of the analogy. The exhortation is then grounded in a statement of male headship, ²⁷⁵ which is then amplified in connection to the overarching parallels in the passage. The husband’s headship over his wife is parallel to Christ’s headship over the church. Verse 24 states the same reality from the opposite point of view: the church’s submission to Christ is parallel to the wife’s submission to her husband. In verse 25 the instruction is no longer directed toward wives, but husbands, and the focus of the analogy shifts from headship and submission to sacrificial love. The same parallels remain, though, between husbands and Christ and between wives and the church, for husbands are to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” These observations are not conclusive, but they should at least help us see some of the unique features of Ephesians 5. We cannot too quickly draw a parallel between this passage and the theological analogies connected with slavery.

Second, we find in verse 31 a quotation from the creation account. Here is another feature of this passage that sets it apart from the others. Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 in a way that applies both to the union of Christ and the church and also to the union of husband and wife. ²⁷⁶ The quotation seems to be closely connected to the previous verse. It has no introductory formula, but it fits nicely into the flow of thought. ²⁷⁷ Thus, Paul again (as in 1 Tim. 2, 1 Cor. 11, and possibly 1 Cor. 14) refers to God’s creation ordinances in the context of providing instruction for the roles of men and women. Third, verse 32 indicates that this passage is revealing something of immense importance. The quotation from Genesis 2:24 is referring not only to human marriage, but also to the mystery of Christ’s union with the church, as the following statement makes clear. ²⁷⁸

In these ways we must acknowledge the unique nature of this passage. Paul is doing much more than presenting a theological analogy. He is revealing a profound feature of God’s design for marriage and its connection to His plan of redemption. From the beginning, God established male headship and wifely submission to be a picture of Christ’s relationship to the church.

As Is Fitting in the Lord

In Colossians 3:18, Paul instructs wives to submit to their own husbands, and then he grounds the command in the fact that it “is fitting in the Lord.” This statement is slightly different than the analogies discussed above, in which slaves are instructed to obey their earthly masters “as you would Christ,” or wives are instructed to submit to their own husbands “as to the Lord.” What we see in Colossians 3:18 is not an analogy, but a ground for submission. Paul is not illustrating the nature of the submission, but giving a basis for it. The prepositional phrase “in the Lord” modifies what immediately precedes it, “as is fitting,” rather than modifying the imperative, “submit.” This connection becomes clear when we examine the similar structure two verses later, where Paul instructs children to obey their parents, and gives as a ground: “for this pleases the Lord.” ²⁷⁹

It is true that “it is fitting” is an idea that was common in Stoic writings. ²⁸⁰ However, Paul adapts it thoroughly into a Christian mindset by attaching to it those revolutionary words: “in the Lord.” F. F. Bruce writes, “The phrase ‘as is fitting’ has a thoroughly Stoic ring about it; but it ceases to be Stoic when baptized into Christ by the added words: ‘in the Lord.’ ” ²⁸¹ Thus, Paul establishes the exhortation for wifely submission, not simply as a cultural norm to uphold, but as an integral component of the Christian life.

It is significant to observe that Paul uses the phrase “in the Lord” in verses 18 and 20, in connection with the instruction for wives to submit to their husbands and the instruction for children to obey their parents. But the phrase is absent in verse 22 where slaves are told to obey their earthly masters. ²⁸² Ernest Best writes, “It is very noticeable that while Paul uses the formula ‘in Christ’ of the mutual duties of husband wife, parent and child, he does not use it of the mutual duties of masters and servants.” ²⁸³ Best attributes this to the nature of marriage and family as opposed to the nature of the master-slave relationship. He says, “The family is a unit, and if one part of it is in Christ it is all in him (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12–16), so that the duties of one member towards another can be said to be ‘in Christ.’ ” ²⁸⁴ This is not the case in the master-slave relationship.

Observing this distinction adds concurring evidence to the thesis that the New Testament instructions for women are significantly different from the instructions for slaves. From Colossians 3:18 we simply observe that Paul provides a basis for wifely submission that is rooted “in the Lord,” and there is a noticeable difference between this and his instructions to slaves in the same context.

Purpose of Obedience

In two passages we find exhortations to women that are followed by a purpose clause. First Peter 3:1 instructs wives to be subject to their own husbands. Then the purpose is given, “so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives.” Titus 2:5 contains a similar purpose clause. The older women are to train the younger women in various ways, one being submission to their husbands. The purpose is then given, “that the word of God may not be reviled.” In 1 Peter 3:1 the purpose is evangelism, and in Titus 2:5 the purpose is not to tarnish the reputation of God’s Word.

These are significant for the redemptive-movement hermeneutic, because the purpose statements are taken as indications that a passage may be culturally bound. Webb states the criterion this way: “A component of a text may be culturally bound, if by practicing the text one no longer fulfills the text’s original intent or purpose.” ²⁸⁵ Looking specifically at 1 Peter 3, the question for us today is whether the evangelistic purpose can still be fulfilled through wifely submission. Peter H. Davids, with the same reasoning as Webb, suggests not: “We may find that a direct application of Peter’s teaching in modern and postmodern societies would subvert his original intentions.” ²⁸⁶ Davids says that those who apply the exhortation of this passage to all cultures are actually moving in the opposite direction of Peter’s intent. “Rather than promoting harmony with culture, they set Christian marriage partners at odds with culture and thus heighten the tension, and Christianity is perceived as undermining culture in a retrogressive way. This is precisely what 1 Peter is seeking to minimize.” ²⁸⁷

I will take up this hermeneutical discussion in chapter 5, but for the present discussion it is sufficient to state my agreement that these purpose statements do not argue in favor of interpreting these commands in a transcultural way. On the other hand, I do not believe they show that the commands are necessarily cultural. They are not definitive one way or the other on the issue. ²⁸⁸

Conclusion

This chapter has surveyed the New Testament commands to women, giving the most attention to ground clauses that distinguish these commands from those given to slaves. In 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11, and possibly 1 Corinthians 14, the commands to women are grounded by references to creation. The next chapter will show more clearly how this distinguishes the women’s passages from the slavery passages.

4

Comparing the Data

T he purpose of this chapter will be to summarize and compare the points made in the previous two chapters. We will observe similarities between the two sets of passages, but the focus will be on the key differences. Finally, this chapter will address the issue of the Household Codes and whether it is legitimate to draw distinctions within them.

Similarities: Purpose of Obedience

Kevin Giles makes a case for understanding the exhortations to women and slaves in the same way. The Bible endorses slavery, he maintains, just as it does male headship, and his conclusion is that “Scripture can endorse social structures no longer acceptable.” ²⁸⁹ In seeking to establish the fundamental connection between the exhortations to women and to slaves, Giles rightly observes that they are usually found in the same contexts. ²⁹⁰ The instructions to women in Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, and 1 Peter 3:1 are closely connected to the instructions given to slaves in Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, and 1 Peter 2:18. Giles asserts, “This in itself would suggest that the exhortations are of the same nature and force.” ²⁹¹ His assumption is plausible. A clear similarity between the two sets of commands is that they are found together within the Household Codes.

What Giles points to as the most significant similarity is the common appeal to the example of Christ. “The most common ground for all the exhortations, whether to women or slaves, is the example of Christ, who willingly subordinated himself in the incarnation and taught that the great in his kingdom would be those who assumed the ministry of servants (Mark 10:45; Luke 22:25–26).” ²⁹² Speaking very generally, we can cite this as a similarity. In 1 Peter 2 we find an extensive and direct appeal to Christ’s example, which is preceded by an exhortation to slaves and followed by an exhortation to wives. In other places there are references to the Lord, although not a specific appeal to Christ’s example. For instance, in Colossians 3:18 Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands “as is fitting in the Lord,” and in verse 24 he encourages slaves with the truth that “you are serving the Lord Christ” (see also Eph. 6:6, “as servants of Christ”).

However, when all of the passages under discussion are closely examined, Giles’s statement must be significantly modified. For 1 Peter 2 is the only passage among the Household Codes where we find a specific appeal to Christ’s example related to submission. In Ephesians 5 there is a connection to Christ’s example, but it is directed to husbands, that they should sacrificially love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Nowhere do we find Christ’s example given as the ground for a command to women, and in the slavery passages the connection with Christ’s suffering appears only in 1 Peter 2.

If we were to observe any similarities between the exhortations to women and to slaves, it would not be the example of Christ, but the purpose statements that are attached to some of the commands. In each passage where a purpose statement is given it is related to the reputation of Christianity. In 1 Timothy 6:1, Paul expands on his instructions to slaves with the following purpose: “so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.” Similarly, in Titus 2, slaves are told to be submissive to their own masters, and verse 10 gives the purpose: “so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.” In that same context, just a few verses earlier, the instruction for women to be submissive to their own husbands is followed by the purpose statement, “that the word of God may not be reviled” (v. 5). Between the exhortation to women and the exhortation to slaves is an exhortation to Titus. Paul tells Titus that his behavior and teaching must be exemplary, “so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us” (v. 8).

Finally, we also find a purpose clause in 1 Peter 3, where wives are told to be submissive to their own husbands, “so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives.” Here it is an evangelistic purpose, closely related to the statements in the other three passages. The intention in each passage is to see people attracted to the gospel rather than repelled by it, and one way that can happen is by Christians living submissive and upright lives in whatever societal position they find themselves.

While it is interesting to observe these similarities, they do not justify treating the two sets of exhortations in the same way. Giles’s assessment is misleading, for his general statement about the example of Christ being the most common ground for all the exhortations can only be clearly substantiated in one text (1 Peter 2–3). The more common similarity is found in the purpose statements. ²⁹³

Differences: Ground for Obedience

When we examine the ground clauses connected to the exhortations, we see a significant divergence between the two groups of passages. Again, Giles’s portrayal is misleading, for he limits his comparison to the Household Codes and quickly dismisses the other important texts. Thus he concludes,

The evidence is compelling: there is no common appeal to the creation order, however understood, in the Household Codes. At best there is one example of an appeal to the chronological ordering of the sexes in creation, matched by an appeal to the responsibility of the woman for the Fall (1 Tim. 2:13–14). This means that the appeal to creation is the exception to the rule , not the pattern. Where there is a second example of an appeal to the creation narratives to ground an apostolic ruling on head coverings (1 Cor. 11:3–16), no one thinks the ruling is universally binding. ²⁹⁴ (italics original)

He dismisses 1 Corinthians 14:34 by citing three interpretations of the passage and then asserting, without defense, “whatever is concluded on any of these questions, one thing is clear: this exhortation is not grounded on an appeal to a creation order established before the Fall; the appeal is to ‘the law.’ ” ²⁹⁵ One of the interpretations he cites is that of D. A. Carson, which Giles does not portray accurately. He writes, “Others have suggested that the issue in this text is not the subordination of wives to husbands but of women to the prophets.” ²⁹⁶ But this draws a false dichotomy that is not present in Carson’s chapter. Carson concludes that the command in 1 Corinthians 14:34 applies to the oral weighing of prophecies, ²⁹⁷ and it is from this point that I assume Giles makes his statement about this interpretation. But the suggestion that the silence called for is in reference to the weighing of prophecies does not mean that “the issue in this text is not the subordination of wives to husbands,” as Giles says. It is both/and, not either/or. The reason women are restricted from weighing prophecies is that it would undermine the pattern of male headship that God has ordained for His creation.

Also, Giles overlooks the important point made by Carson that “the law” is likely referring to Genesis 2:20b–24. Carson observes that Paul appealed to “the law” earlier in the chapter (14:21), and goes on to write, “Paul is probably not referring to Genesis 3:16, as many suggest, but to the creation order in Genesis 2:20b–24, for it is to that Scripture that Paul explicitly turns on two other occasions when he discusses female roles (1 Cor. 11:8–9; 1 Tim. 2:13).” ²⁹⁸ If the reference is to Genesis 2, then the exhortation is grounded on an appeal to the creation order established before the fall. ²⁹⁹ Giles does not interact with this possibility, but rejects it without providing any basis for doing so.

Concerning Ephesians 5, Giles maintains that “Paul seeks to transform the patriarchal understanding of marriage without attacking it directly. . . . The ground for the appeal is Christological and the paradigm ecclesiological. The only time the creation narratives are mentioned is in Ephesians 5:31, where the making one of man and woman in marriage is the issue.” ³⁰⁰ But it is significant that Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 in this passage. These verses reveal something profound about the design of the universe—that husbands are to demonstrate sacrificial love as they lead their wives, and wives are to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. Paul cites the creation narrative, to highlight not only the one-flesh union of marriage, but also the union of Christ and his church. God’s intention for marriage (i.e., the distinct roles of husband and wife) was established at creation to serve as a living parable of Christ’s relationship with the church. ³⁰¹ Therefore, Giles incorrectly minimizes the reference to Genesis 2:24, and more importantly, misses the weight of the theological grounding. He refers to the fact that the passage is “the most theologically grounded of all the material in the Household Codes,” but he does not recognize the significance of the theological grounding. ³⁰²

I will now summarize the exegetical conclusions from the previous chapter concerning the exhortations to women, and then contrast them with the exhortations to slaves. Contrary to Giles, there is a repeated appeal to the creation narrative in the women’s passages. In those passages where a purpose clause is given (Titus 2:4–5; 1 Peter 3:1), the creation narrative is not cited, thus making these passages similar to the slavery exhortations in which a purpose clause is given (1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:9–10). But of the five other passages that contain an exhortation to women, there is a clear reference to creation in three of them (1 Tim. 2:12–14; 1 Cor. 11:2–16; Eph. 5:22–33), and arguably in four (1 Cor. 14:34). Colossians 3:18–19, being a very concise exhortation to wives and husbands, does not provide a deep theological or scriptural basis for the instruction. Admittedly, in Ephesians 5:22–33 the reference to creation is not the fundamental ground for the commands. However, it is still significant that Genesis 2:24 is cited, and there is also the weighty theological connection between the husband-wife relationship and Christ’s relationship to the church, which must be considered. I do not want to make too much of the quotation from Genesis 2:24 here, but I do want to show that there is a repeated appeal to the creation narrative in the women’s passages, contrary to Giles’s assessment of the passages.

In 1 Timothy 2, Paul grounds his prohibition of women teaching or exercising authority over men in the order of creation. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (v. 13), which points to Adam’s headship in the marriage. “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (v. 14), which refers to the fact that Eve was the first to be deceived, for the serpent undermined God’s design by approaching the helper rather than the head. Thus, a clear and detailed reference to the order of creation, and the order of the fall, is given as the rationale for the instruction in verses 11–12.

In 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 there is also a clear and detailed reference to the order of creation. Verse 3 establishes the principle of male headship by drawing an analogy between Christ’s headship over every man, man’s headship over woman, and God’s headship over Christ. In verse 6 the imperative is given for the wife to cover her head, and she is to do so because “woman is the glory of man” (v. 7). Then verses 8–9, like 1 Timothy 2, ground this in the way that God created man and woman. First of all, the woman was made “from” the man (v. 8). And secondly, she was made “for” the man (v. 9). In this way, Paul uses the Genesis 2 account to demonstrate God’s design for male headship, while he goes on to remind us of God’s design for the interdependence of man and woman (vv. 11–12).

The statements concerning husbands and wives in Ephesians 5 also contain a reference to the creation narrative (Gen. 2:24 in Eph. 5:31, as mentioned above in response to Giles). Also, in the previous chapter, I argued that the “theological analogy” of the Ephesians 5 passage is much more than an analogy. It is, rather, a statement of God’s design for marriage. God created it to portray the spiritual reality of Christ’s relationship to the church, which includes the important dynamic of headship and submission.

Finally, it is likely that 1 Corinthians 14 also contains a reference to creation. The call for women to be silent in the churches is best understood as referring to weighing prophecies. Paul prohibited women from participating in this way because it would essentially involve a woman teaching or exercising authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:12). Even if the weighing of prophecies is not in view, it is clear that Paul’s prohibition is related to the appropriate roles of men and women in the church. His intention is to uphold God’s design for manhood and womanhood in the context of the church’s corporate worship. And once we recognize the similarities among 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11, and 1 Corinthians 14, the reference to “the Law” in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is best read as a reference to the creation account.

In stark contrast with this, the slavery passages lack any references to creation. The commands to slaves are grounded in a fundamentally different way. In the slavery passages, the common ground for the instruction is the reminder of God’s reward for well-doing. In Ephesians 6, Paul commands slaves to obey their earthly masters, and to serve them well, as they would Christ, “knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free” (v. 8). Colossians 3:24–25 provides a similar ground, although here the threat of punishment is included: “knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.” In 1 Peter 2:19, suffering unjustly is portrayed as “a gracious thing.” And in verse 20, “if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.” In other words, such conduct will find favor in God’s eyes.

The common appeal to reward in these ground clauses reinforces the observation that the commands to slaves, and the theological analogies used in those contexts, are designed to encourage and motivate individuals who are oppressed in various ways. The intent is not to establish slavery as a God-ordained institution.

Household Codes

The remaining question has to do with the Household Codes and whether it is legitimate to apply the wife/husband exhortations differently than the slave/master exhortations. ³⁰³ Giles argues strongly that the parallel instructions must be read in the same way. This argument, of course, seems reasonable. Indeed, in Ephesians 5–6 and in Colossians 3 the three relationships are addressed one right after the other (wives/husbands; children/fathers; slaves/masters). ³⁰⁴ In light of this, it would seem counterintuitive to say that two of these remain applicable today, while the third does not.

Giles asserts, “Most commentators, both past and present, have argued that these paired exhortations are of the same nature, and the nineteenth-century American evangelicals who argued in support of slavery emphasized this.” ³⁰⁵ It is true that advocates of slavery maintained the parallel between the slavery texts and the women texts. What is interesting to note, however, is the fact that some abolitionists differentiated the two. Apparently unaware of this, Giles goes on to say, “The assertion by contemporary hierarchical-complementarians that these parallel exhortations to women and slaves to be subordinate are to be contrasted is an entirely novel idea, never heard before the 1970s and rejected universally by critical scholarly studies of the Household Codes or Rules.” ³⁰⁶ Some abolitionists in the nineteenth century, though, clearly distinguished the two sets of commands in their opposition of slavery. ³⁰⁷ Albert Barnes, for example, cites several differences between slavery and the relationship of husband and wife, and maintains that the apostles did not present the two as parallel. ³⁰⁸ Therefore, contrary to Giles, it is not a novel idea to sharply distinguish the slave-master relationship from the wife-husband relationship. The question of novelty, although important, is not the main issue, however. We must determine from the texts themselves whether there is warrant for viewing these exhortations differently.

The comparison of these relationships is complicated by the fact that sandwiched between them are exhortations concerning children and parents. In both Ephesians 5:22–6:9 and Colossians 3:18–4:1 the instructions follow the same pattern, with the instructions to children and fathers appearing in the middle. This pair of exhortations—that children obey their parents and fathers not provoke their children—is the least debated in these passages. For virtually no one would argue that children no longer need to obey their parents. Thomas Schreiner cites this as a weakness in the egalitarian argument, which insists on the parallel between the commands given to wives and husbands and the commands given to slaves and masters. “Those who say that the admonition to wives is culturally bounded by appealing to the matter of slavery must also (to be consistent) say that the admonition for children to obey their parents no longer applies today.” ³⁰⁹ In the same way, George Knight points to the middle set of instructions as a reason why it would be wrong to deny the first and third. “But if the argument advanced above is true, then it cuts all the way across the board. Not only would the teaching about husbands and wives cease to be normative and fall away with slavery, but so would the teaching about parents and children, which is positioned between the other two relationships!” ³¹⁰

At the very least, this point levels the playing field concerning the Household Codes. Giles accuses complementarians of illegitimately distinguishing between the first and third pair of commands, but by declaring those commands to be obsolete he is faced with the question of how to evaluate the middle pair of instructions. ³¹¹

I. Howard Marshall seeks to deal with this issue by suggesting that the command to children is not applicable today in the same way it was in the first century. He acknowledges that the “instructions to parents and children appear to be commonsensical and Christian,” but then he raises the question of “the age at which children cease to be under the strict authority of their parents.” ³¹² He draws a distinction between then and now: “in the ancient world this subordination continued to a more advanced age than would be natural for us.” ³¹³ Also, “the father as patriarch had a much greater authority over sons and daughters than is the case today.” ³¹⁴ Thus, the argument is made that all three sets of instructions in these Household Codes must be applied differently today.

But Marshall does not claim that the fundamental command given to children is no longer applicable. Even if the original command included adult children in its scope, the main thrust of the instruction is certainly relevant today, as Marshall recognizes. ³¹⁵ So the question is not whether there exist cultural features in these texts. I readily agree that there are (e.g., slavery, and possibly some aspect of the parent-child relationship; and in another place, head coverings, 1 Cor. 11). But the ultimate question at the center of this debate is whether male headship and wifely submission are among those cultural components. Giles maintains that they are, just as slavery is a cultural feature of the texts. The specific question is whether there is justification for distinguishing between the wife-husband commands and the slave-master commands.

I believe there is justification for this distinction, but let me clarify the nature of the distinction. I am not arguing that certain commands are abiding (instructions to wives) while others have become obsolete (instructions to slaves). The wife-husband section and the slave-master section are both still applicable. In the commands to slaves and masters we can find principles that apply to employees and employers. ³¹⁶ Thus, I would say that these injunctions still have application for our lives, but they cannot be read as a basis for the institution of slavery. And this is the difference between the two sets of commands. We find a weighty basis for the institution of marriage as God designed it, but there is no support for the institution of slavery. In this way the abiding relevance of the entirety of the Household Codes is affirmed. While there are surely elements that reflect first-century Greco-Roman culture, there are also principles that are to be upheld and obeyed by God’s people regardless of time or place.

The debate, then, is not centered on whether or not the Household Codes must be taken as a unit. We must examine each relationship that is addressed and determine the nature of the commands. My aim in the previous chapters, and in this chapter’s summary, has been to show that there are fundamental differences between the ground clauses related to gender roles and the ground clauses related to slaves. In the next chapters I will address several pertinent hermeneutical questions.