Occasional Documents
and
Permanent Legislation
Rex Banks
In his introduction
to 1 Corinthians Richard E. Oster
describes his work as "primarily a historical-exegetical
commentary" (The College Press
NIV Commentary p. 11). He explains:
"
This means in
the first instance that the feelings doctrines and ideas of Paul must as far as
possible be understood in the historical framework in which he wrote them and
in which the first readers lived" (pp. 11, 12).
"A commitment
to a historical-exegetical methodology means that one must always recognize
that Paul's letter to the Corinthians is an occasional document, arising in the
first instance as direct responses to ad hoc issues and problems in the lives
of believers living in a certain region of the Roman Empire, at a specific
time, and under particular historical and cultural circumstances" (p. 12).
Keener
has this in mind when he makes the following comment:
"(Paul) ... did
not write (Scripture) for all circumstances and ... we must take into account the circumstances
he addressed to understand how he would have applied his principles in very
different situations. In practice, no
one today applies all texts for all circumstances, no matter how loudly they
may defend some texts as applying to all circumstances. For instance, most of
us did not send offerings for the church in Jerusalem this Sunday (1
Corinthians 16:1—3). If our churches do not support widows, we can protest that
most widows today have not washed the saints’ feet (1 Timothy 5:10). Likewise,
few readers today would advocate our going to Troas to pick up Paul’s cloak; we
recognize that Paul addressed these words specifically to Timothy (2 Timothy
4:13)." (http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm)
Thomas R. Schreiner points out:
"(Paul)
never wrote a systematic theology in which all elements of his thought are
related together and presented in a coherent and logical fashion. Instead he
wrote letters to churches (or individuals) and these letters were addressed to
the particular circumstances faced by the churches. (They are) pastoral
responses to problems and situations in his churches" (Interpreting the
Pauline Epistles, New Testament Criticism and Interpretation edited by D.
A. Black and D.S. Dockery).
Clearly
understanding the circumstances of each letter plays an important role in
interpretation.
On the other hand we
must not fall into the trap of invoking the ad hoc explanation if
nothing in the text suggests that a particular instruction is linked to culture
or circumstance. Douglas Moo has this in mind in his discussion of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 where Paul forbids women to
teach or exercise authority over men. Responding to the argument that Paul's
instructions are intended to regulate a specific first century situation
Moo says:
"In verse 12 Paul prohibits women in the
church at Ephesus from teaching men and having authority over them. But we now
face the crucial question: Does this prohibition apply to the Christian church
today?
We cannot simply assume that it does. The New
Testament contains many injunctions that are intended only for a specific
situation, and when the situation changes, the injunction may change its form
or lose its validity...
On the other hand, it is not a matter simply
of identifying a local or temporary circumstance to which a text is directed
and concluding that the text is therefore limited in its application
Almost the entire New Testament is written to specific circumstances—correcting
certain false teachings, answering specific questions, seeking to unify
specific church factions, etc.—but this does not necessarily mean that what is
written applies only to those circumstances. For instance, Paul develops his
doctrine of justification by faith in Galatians in response to specific,
Judaizing teachers for a specific group of first-century Christians. But the
specific nature of these circumstances in no way limits the applicability of
his teaching. We might say that the circumstances give rise to his teaching
but do not limit it. This point is particularly important, because some
studies of 1 Timothy 2:12 imply that if one can identify local or temporary
circumstances against which the passage is written then one can conclude that
the text has only limited application. This is manifestly not true.
Therefore, the question to be asked of 1 Timothy 2:12 is, Can we identify
circumstances that limit its application to certain times and places?" (What
Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men 1 Timothy 2:11-15)
(http://bible.org/seriespage/what-does-it-mean-not-teach-or-have-authority-over-men-1-timothy-211-15)
This is a good point. Many do fall into the trap of "identifying a local or temporary
circumstance to which a text is directed and concluding that the text is
therefore limited in its application."
In my view Gordon
Fee falls into this trap in his discussion of female leadership in the
assembly. Fee reminds us again and again in his commentaries that the New
Testament epistles are occasional
documents and he is convinced that this fact explains Paul's instructions
concerning women and leadership. For example in his commentary on the
Pastorals he concludes his discussion of 1 Tim 2:8-15 with the following
explanation of why "women's place in the worshipping community is to be a
quiet one":
"(The) reason for these particular instructions in this particular way is
best undestood as a response to the activities and teachings of the wayward
elders" (p. 76 New International Biblical Commentary 1 and 2 Timothy,
Titus).
This kind of approach has become
common. In an article entitled A Tale Of Two
Cultures: Understanding The Historical And Cultural Context Of The NT Epistles
James R Payton professor of history at Redeemer University College, Ancaster,
ON, Canada offers the following thoughts:
“The New Testament
letters, for example, were written to first-century churches in the ancient
Roman Empire. To understand them, we need to take into account the culture into
which the biblical authors wrote; that is, we need to consider the historical
context.”
Most of us would agree so far. He continues;
“Historians have long
recognized that the ancient Roman Empire was composed of two quite different
cultures. One was the Hellenistic culture spread around the eastern
Mediterranean basin through the conquests of Alexander the Great in the fourth
century B.C…. The other culture was Roman, the culture of the Roman Empire.”
Our
writer then gets to his main point:
“(A)mong
the Hellenistic/Roman divergences, the place of women in the two cultures was
significantly different. In Roman culture, women had almost the same rights as
men… (T)hey could be seen and could speak in public
without damaging their reputation.
“The contrast in the
situation of women in the Hellenistic cultural sphere was dramatic…In ancient
Greece women had almost no personal legal rights … Furthermore, women could not
appear in public without a man (either a guardian or a woman’s husband); almost
the only ones who did were prostitutes … It was considered unseemly for a woman
to speak with or interact with a man or men other than her husband…
“The only women who openly interacted with men
in public were either prostitutes or, at a higher social level, hetairai— … (T)he way a hetaira could originally be recognized was by
whether a woman appeared and spoke openly among men in public. … (T)o do so declared her status as a
hetaira—and, with that, her availability for sexual favors….
“With all this in mind,
some interesting points become clear as one considers the New Testament data
about women and the church.
“In the first place,
all the apostolic injunctions that women must keep
quiet or not speak within the church— 1 Timothy 2:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:5;
and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35—were written to churches situated in the Hellenistic
culture… (Speaking out in this Hellenistic culture) would more than slightly suggest that these
women were hetairai and, thus, sexually available: it would make the church
come off as a brothel…
“By contrast to this
Hellenistic cultural picture, when one looks at the apostolic treatment
accorded to women in the churches situated in the Roman culture, one finds a
stark difference. In Rome, Paul acknowledged several women as gifted Christian
leaders: Phoebe (16:1), Prisca (16:3), Mary (16:6), and Junia (16:7) all came
in for praise—in ways that undermine the notion that Christian women must not
teach, must be silent, and must not speak in the presence of men in a
congregation.”
Payton concludes:
“In North America, we
live in a culture where women can be, and speak, in public without staining
their reputation. Christian women can do so in church without culturally
impugning the reputation of the church …To use the apostle’s words, the church
must embrace them as “co-workers in the gospel,” in the fullest and freest
sense possible” (A Tale of Two Cultures: Understanding The
Historical And Cultural Context Of The NT Epistles Priscilla Papers16:1
Winter 2002 pp. 14-16)
In my view Payton too falls into
the trap of "identifying a local or temporary circumstance to which a text
is directed and concluding that the text is therefore limited in its
application." Paul invokes creation order to argue that women are to
remain silent and it is not helpful to bury his explanation under discussion of
prostitution in Hellenistic society. His suggestion that Paul had one set of
rules for Hellenistic churches and another set of rules for Romanized groups
ignores the text.
William
Barclay says:
"If,
in a Greek town, Christian women had taken an active and speaking part
in its work, the church would have inevitably gained the reputation of being
the resort of loose women."
According
to Rienecker and Rogers:
“In the
Jewish synagogue women were not allowed to speak in public and took no active
part in the conduct of divine service … Plutarch wrote that not only the arm
but the voice of a modest woman ought to be kept from the public, and she
should feel shame at being heard, as at being stripped” (p. 438).
Again:
“Paul
tells Timothy and the first- century believers in Ephesus that he himself does
not allow a woman to teach or assume authority over a man. Paul would not
necessarily say the same thing to us. He might, but we cannot assume that he would”
(How to Read the Bible in Changing Times – Mark L. Strauss).
As we
have seen, brother Mitchell takes this position (“In Paul's experience,
for a woman to speak freely or assert herself unabashedly was shameful
under all circumstances in all known cultures Jewish and pagan”). So according to this view, Paul's instructions concerning male
leadership in 1 Timothy 2 amount to nothing more than a concession to first
century practice.
Some
invoke a completely different cultural scenario to explain why Paul’s instructions
concerning male leadership are not transcultural. For example in their I
Suffer Not a Woman, Richard Clark and Catherine Clark Kroegeraffirm that within the temple systems of Asia Minor
"matriarchy prevailed" and that “Ephesus stood as a bastion of feminine supremacy in
religion." Allegedly, in 1 Tim 2
“Paul addresses the notion that women were necessary to communicate ultimate
truth... (and) combating the willingness of women to
assume that they had a monopoly on divine enlightenment." According to the Kroegers, 1 Tim 2:12 "is not directed against participating in leadership but
rather against monopoly on religious power by women," and the prohibition
only applies to women in the church at Ephesus. Like Barclay and Mitchell, the
Kroegers view Paul’s instructions on male leadership as cultural, but they
appeal to a completely different set of circumstances. Barclay argues that
Paul’s instructions concerning the silence of women are explained by the fact
that women did not take a leading role in public, while the Kroegers
affirm that Paul’s instructions are best explained by the fact that women
played a dominant role
in first century worship.
We can
see the difficulty here. The
"custom" approach to 1 Tim 2:8-15 is so flexible that it can
accommodate completely contradictory "facts" of history. Paul's words can be viewed as either reflecting
current practice or as a corrective
to current practice. The “custom” position is so flexible that it
“explains” any historical reconstruction imaginable. Here's the problem: Paul's actual
instructions in 1 Tim 2 concerning the role of the male and female are buried
under endless discussion about the "life situation" of Ephesus or the
"first century cultural setting." Priority is not given to the
text, but to some alleged first century situation.
Increasingly
commentators are treating the statements about the silence of women as "ad
hoc instructions designed for a particular situation in Ephesus" and
arguing that these injunctions "correspond with the generally accepted
norms of behaviour and expectations for women in both Jewish and Greco-Roman
cultures" (A Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline
Epistles Amy-Jill Levine, Marianne Blickenstaff p. 107).
But the problem is not confined
to this issue. Increasingly cultural factors are also
being invoked by egalitarians in their exegesis of Ephesians 5:21ff where Paul
discusses the relationship of the husband and the wife.
“Interestingly, the modes of interpretation and cultural
translation used by Christians are often inconsistent when approaching
Ephesians’ commands regarding slaves and women. While few Christians interpret
Ephesians as a justification for slavery, many hold to a supposedly “direct”
application of its commands concerning women in chapter 5. Paul’s exhortation
“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you
do to the Lord” is interpreted and applied literally as supporting male
dominance in the church and home. This common inconsistency between
readings of Ephesians’ commands regarding slaves and women indicates that many
Christians possess preconceived and extraneous assumptions about the roles of
women, which they bring to their interpretation of the text. Those who hold
that Ephesians 5:21-33 supports the authority of husbands over their wives
start their interpretation of this passage with preconceived beliefs in gender
inequality and patriarchy. When such preconceived beliefs and interpretations
are brought to the passage, the cultural context of the first century is
abandoned and the thrust of the message is missed. Fair interpretation
necessitates that, in the same spirit by which we evaluate Ephesians’ teaching
regarding slaves, we acknowledge how the cultural and social norms regarding
women in the first century underlie the author’s instructions regarding women
and marriage” (Lisa Baumert Biblical
Interpretation and the Epistle to the Ephesians Priscilla Papers 25:2 Spring 2011 p. 22).
So Paul’s explanation is buried under an endless
discussion of first century social norms respecting marriage.
In my view
the texts in question will not permit these conclusions.
·
Yes 1 Timothy is addressed to "Timothy, a true son in the
faith" (1 Tim 1:2) and yes the use of the plural pronoun in 6:21 does
indicate that the church at Ephesus is included, but this does not justify the
conclusion that Paul's instruction concerning the silence of women is limited
to first century Ephesus.
·
Even if it was unacceptable for first century women to speak in
public (which is by no means certain) “it
is not a matter simply of identifying a local or temporary circumstance to
which a text is directed and concluding that the text is therefore limited in
its application."
·
Yes the first century family was hirerachical, and the
husband did indeed have authority over the wife, but once again “it is not a matter simply of identifying a local
or temporary circumstance to which a text is directed and concluding that the
text is therefore limited in its application.“
·
Paul explains that male leadership in the assembly and in the home
is grounded upon such things as creation order and Christ’s relationship
with His church. This is Paul’s own explanation and we must listen to the
apostle. Paul grounds his teachings upon facts which transcend culture, and
thus these teachings are not limited to a particular time or place.
Under the heading Gender Passages in the NT: Hermeneutical Fallacies Critiqued Andreas J. Köstenberger has the following
useful comment:
“To insist fallaciously that occasionality
equals cultural relativity renders in the ultimate analysis any divine
revelation to humanity impossible, since such revelation by necessity occurs in a cultural, circumstantial
context. Thus the question is not whether a given teaching is occasional in
nature but whether it is limited to the occasion by the biblical writer or
other textual or contextual factors.
Again, the neglect to consider adequately a text’s
explicit argumentation in favor of a preoccupation with questions of cultural background lacks balance. It is certainly appropriate to seek to illumine
a text with relevant background information. But to all
but ignore explicit textual material and to allow the text to be superseded by background information fails to
meet the standard of a hermeneutical methodology that properly employs all the tools at its disposal
and does so with proper balance” (Westminster
Theological Journal 56:2 Fall 1994 p. 273).
Brother Wayne Jackson reminds us:
“(N)o one has the
right to assume that a divinely given instruction or practice is culturally
conditioned unless there are contextual considerations which clearly indicate
that such is the case" (Command or
Culture The Coming Controversy Rightly Dividing the Word vol 2 p. 444
editor Terry Hightower).
This is a timely
reminder at a time when some prominent theologians seem intent upon using the
“cultural" argument to dismantle the biblical teaching on a whole range of
important doctines. For example in an article entitled Homosexuality And The
Church, Alex D. Montoya explains how some are attempting to justify
homosexual relationships:
“Cultural Biases of the Biblical Writers
Most pro-homosexual theologians argue that the
biblical authors were culturally biased against homosexuality. Such proponents
would argue that the apostle Paul was a product of the Judaism of his time, and
thus had cultural ‘blind spots,’ most noticeably regarding women and gays. John
J. McNeill, in The Church and the Homosexual, asserts that ‘the Scriptures are
‘historically and culturally limited’ so that one cannot merely transpose a
text of Scripture to the contemporary circumstances of life.’ Hence, because the biblical authors wrote
from such a distant and culturally irrelevant setting, gay proponent Robin Scroggs concludes, ‘The conclusion
I have to draw seems inevitable: Biblical judgments against homosexuality are
not relevant to today’s debate.’ ‘Paul’s arguments,’ states Marti Nissinen, ‘are based on certain Hellenistic Jewish moral
codes that are culture-specific and that had their own trajectory of
tradition.’ In fact, Paul may have needed sexual therapy himself” (Masters
Seminary Journal 1:2 Fall 2000 p. 157).
Yes background
knowledge is important, but we must not invoke “culture” without good reason,
or replace inspired explanations with interpretations which give priority to
alleged first century custom.
In a book dealing
with Biblical exegesis, Walter C. Kaiser writes under the heading Cultural
Terms:
“Two extremes are often found in the discussion of customs,
cultures and Biblical norms. One tends to level out all features in the Bible,
including its cultural institutions and terms, and to make them into normative
teaching on a par with any other injunction of Scripture. The other extreme
tends to jump at any suspected culturally-conditioned description in the Bible
as an excuse for reducing the teaching
connected with that text to a mere report of a now defunct situation. Both of these approaches usually are examples of what not to do in
responsible exegesis of Scripture” (Toward an Exegetical Theology p. 114).
Application
I have argued that Paul’s head covering instructions
conform to no known first century practice and that for this reason the
culture argument fails. However in my view the culture argument would fail even
if this was not the case, and it would fail for the reasons outlined above,
namely “it is not a matter
simply of identifying a local or temporary circumstance to which a text is
directed and concluding that the text is therefore limited in its application."
The following from R. C. Sproul is very helpful:
"It is one thing to seek a more lucid understanding of
the biblical content by investigating the cultural situation of the first
century; it is quite another to interpret the New Testament as if it were
merely an echo of the first-century culture. To do so would be to fail to
account for the serious conflict the church experienced as it confronted the
first-century world. Christians were not thrown to the lions for their penchant
for conformity.
Some very subtle means of relativizing the
text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought
not to be there. For example, with respect to the hair-covering issue in
Corinth, numerous commentators on the Epistle point out that the local sign of
the prostitute in Corinth was the uncovered head. Therefore, the argument
runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a
scandalous appearance of Christian women in the external guise of prostitutes.
What is wrong with
this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our
reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul
with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we
are not only putting words into the apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring
words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and gave no rationale for such instruction, we
would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case,
however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation,
not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal
for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To
subordinate Paul’s stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to
slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisegesis.
The creation ordinances are indicators of the
transcultural principle. If any biblical principles transcend local
customary limits, they are the appeals drawn from creation. I hope the
answer is obvious" (Knowing Scripture pp. 154, 155).
Writing in Westminster Theological Journal back in
1972 Noel K Weeks echoes this sentiment:
“It is often asserted that
Paul’s purpose was to make the church conform to local standards of decency.
His teaching in this passage may have relevance for
us in that the principle of seeking to avoid offense is applicable to us, but the specific details are not binding upon
us. This interpretation of the whole passage finds no
warrant in the text itself. In the previous chapter the apostle had argued
against certain practices
which could be
misinterpreted within Corinthian society. In 14:23 he raises as an argument the
effect that church behavior would have upon outsiders. In
chapter 11 there is no such appeal. The argument consistently turns upon the created order. Being
the created order, it is an order valid in all times and places” (Of Silence and Head Covering WTJ 35:1 Fall 1972 p. 21).
In my view the Annotations to the Geneva Bible of 1560
provide a good example of the tendency to “subordinate Paul’s stated reason" to
a “ speculatively conceived reason." In 1 Cor 11:4 Paul says: “Every man who has something on his head
while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.” The annotation on this verse
says:
“It appears, that this was a political law serving
only for the circumstance of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because
in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of
subjection.”
Evidently John Knox preached in a hat. With this in mind,
consider Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 11:7 about men worshipping with covered
heads:
“For a man ought not to have his head covered,
since he is the image and glory of God…”
In light of this
consider the following:
“(A) man ought not to have his head covered, since
he is the image and glory of God”
John
Knox, a man, is the image and glory of God.
Conclusion:
Therefore John Knox, being the image and glory of God, ought not to have his
head covered.
Some have
drawn a different conclusion, namely that it is not the case that John Knox,
being the image and glory of God, ought not have his head uncovered. This
conclusion is reached by replacing Paul’s explanation with an appeal to
custom (“It appears, that this
was a political law serving only for the circumstance of the time that Paul
lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak
bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection.”). Using this approach
we could reason (for example) that using fruit of the vine at the Lord’s Table
served only for the circumstance of the time since this once significant symbol
is meaningless in many cultures today. (See Symbols and the Transcultural Principle)
Another example of eisegesis is found in the following:
“Thus, when Paul
appeals to the order of headship in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (“But I would have you
know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the
man; and the head of Christ is God.”), he begins by laying down the
unalterable, moral principle of male headship and female submission. This, in
reality, was the truth that was being denied when the men covered their heads
and the women uncovered their heads contrary to the accepted cultural custom in
Corinth. The uncovering of the man and the covering of the woman were merely
the outward cultural expressions of this revealed order of headship
(similar to the outward cultural sign of the holy kiss signifying the revealed
truth of brotherly love)” (The
Practice of Headcoverings In
Public Worship Issued by the Reformed Presbytery In North America June
4, 2001).
It is true that in 1 Cor 11:3 Paul “begins by laying down the
unalterable, moral principle of male headship and female submission.” But if
Paul had wanted to teach that John Knox was to honour the biblical principles by
remaining bareheaded, what language could Paul have
employed to teach this more clearly? Again:
“(A) man ought not to have his head covered since he is the image and glory of God”
John
Knox, a man, is the image and glory of God.
Conclusion:
Therefore John Knox, being a man in the image and glory of God ought not to
have his head covered.
To draw a different
conclusion, namely that John
Knox, being the gory and image of God ought not deny the unalterable moral
principle of male headship but, given the custom of his day, need not remain
bareheaded, is to make it impossible for Paul to teach that the head
covering instructions themselves are grounded upon the nature of the sexes.
If these words are not sufficient to teach this, then there are no
words sufficient to teach this.
Language has become impotent. It also becomes possible to treat baptism
and fruit of the vine as cultural expressions of an underlying principle. (See Symbols and the Transcultural Principle)
Conclusion
It is
important that we do not rip the New Testament epistles from their historical
setting. However we must also keep in mind that these occasional documents do
contain permanently binding legislation as well as instructions for
local first century Christians.
·
The fact that Paul addresses Timothy and the Ephesians
in 1 Timothy does not tell us if his instructions concerning the silence of
women are permanent and universal or local and temporary. However Paul's appeal to creation order in 1 Tim 2:8-15 should
convince us that male leadership is part of the eternal apostolic pattern.
·
Similarly the fact that 1st Corinthians is
addressed to “the church of God which is at
Corinth” does not tell us if Paul's instructions concerning gifted sisters in 1
Cor 14:34, 35 are limited to the Corinthian assembly or universally applicable.
Again context is decisive.
·
It is true that
in the first century society patriarchy was the norm, but it does not follow
that Paul’s instructions concerning male headship in the family (Eph 5) are
culturally based.
·
Context is also
decisive in 1 Cor 11:2-16. The fact that Paul addresses “the church of God which is at Corinth” does not permit
us to decide if we are dealing with temporary or permanent legislation
regardless of first century custom.
In my view Sproul has hit the nail on the
head. “To subordinate Paul’s stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason
is to ... turn exegesis into eisegesis." While acknowledging the
fact that we are dealing with occasional documents we must let Paul make his own case in 1 Tim 2:8
ff 1 Cor 14:33, Eph 5:21ff - and also in 1 Cor 11:2-16. All too
often Paul himself gives an inspired explanation but his own explanation is
buried under endless discussions of local culture. This is unfortunate.
Let’s not “supply Paul with a rationale that is
foreign to the one he gives himself.”