A Review of the Third Edition of Women in the Church by Andreas J. Kostenberger & Thomas R. Schreiner
–
It is possible in the USA that we’ll have a woman president next week, but it is also possible we’ll have just eliminated the possibility for at least four more years. So it is a poignant time to ruminate on women in authority in the church, since the state has advanced so far.
–
Women in the Church, 3rd Ed. (make sure it is the 3rd Edition) is a careful project with first class research. From the roles of women in Ephesus to studies of Greek word usage, there is readable derivation of well thought out points. Actually, Women in the Church provides an amazing and voluminous amount of research underlying seven verses in the Bible. Just seven! And after all that the conclusion is highly comforting to the layperson Christian who wants to read the Bible on their own: the words meant what they appear to say, and they say what they mean.
–
That means Paul really did say in 1 Tim 2: 9–15 (NASB):
“Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
–
Even in the most confusing verse, apparently Paul really did say women would be saved through childbirth so long as they continue in faith etc., and the word “saved” is the same one used in “saved by faith”. Other meanings are rejected for good reason. For women without children, this is a hard verse. To this end Women in the Church extends the interpretation based on other scripture and posits Paul was not limiting women teaching unbelieving men in day-to-day settings, and that evangelism is an approved calling for women and produces second births. I would add to that, given the tarry of the Lord, that the entire church (the bride of Christ) is saved by continueing second births, and since Paul did use plural he may have intended that analogy.
–
The challenge of the interpretation comes down to application in today’s world, where we almost have a culture that no longer limits women’s roles by gender. The marketing for the book promised a discussion about the application of these verses. They seemed proud of their “discussion.” However, the only participants are people that currently champion complementarian thinking. That is not a discussion, it is a chorus. How I would like for them to have included an N. T. Wright or a key feminist theologian that subscribes to Sola Scriptura.
–
Even though they provide the ingredients for reconsidering women speaking in the church today, they seem blind to putting them together:
–
1. Paul says “I do not allow” (some translations say “permit”). The key word is “I”. That is a big qualifier. It means he is conveying his decision based on what he can see of his own culture. In other places he uses much stronger wording on other issues when he wants to. The strongest is the “As I live, says the Lord…” of Romans 14:11. For recent insights, he says, “I know and am persuaded” in Romans 14:14. Most other uses of the word “I” are his own actions: “I thank, I serve, I long, I intend, I may reap, I do not understand [someone’s else’s bad logic]” Moses uses “You shall not” for the biggest commands from God. The phrase “God did not permit” is used for comtempory actions as in God did not permit harm in a situation. The clear reading of the phrase is that Paul is making the statement in his own authority, and he is not sure it will be for all time in all places.
2. Because Paul is not sure this command is for all time, he gives his reasoning so that we can check it for our time. He says it was Adam that was created first, and then Eve. As Women in the Church points out, Paul lived in a culture of primogeniture. The firstborn living son inherited. So being first born meant you were the child responsible for keeping the inheritance together and owning the estate. “Adam being first” would mean in their eyes it would be Adam that should be held responsible, independent of gender. It is true that God spoke first to Adam, but he got to consequences for both of them. He clearly did not hold only Adam responsible, as Women in the Church points out, just as he did not hold Eve responsible alone. So a key flag Paul points to as to whether we need to make the same decision as Paul does, is: do we live in a culture of primogeniture? No, many of us do not. The implication being that if we do not, we may consider making a different decision in our time for our culture.
3. The next thing Paul says is: “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Women in the Church correctly points out that Adam seems to be standing right there as Eve is deceived, but does not choose to intervene when Satan converses with Eve. And God had given the instruction to Adam, who then presumably had taught it to Eve. So Eve had the first second hand translation on earth, and it had already lost some of its power. No wonder Paul wants to be sure the women are at church learning from the best along with the men! While Eve is first to transgress, she is not only. And while Paul is silencing women before men here as a result, a later council will silence all teaching not compatible with the canon of scripture, even from men. Paul couldn’t do that — they didn’t have the canon yet. Again, his decision is time-bound by a situation we no longer have.
–
We have the canon. We don’t have primogeniture. Yes, Paul silenced women from preaching and where they would have authority over believing men in his day. That doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do now!
–
One place the book seems equivocal is that they want to treat teaching and having authority over men separately, after a great deal of linguistic analysis. The proof seems conclusive in chapter 3 on both terms being positive (it is referring to all teaching, not bad teaching, and all authority over men, not unassigned authority). Women in the Church points out that we must be consistent with the rest of scripture, and so they also point out that women teach other women in public in other scripture, and so all teaching in public cannot be the correct interpretation. Still, because the book takes “teaching” and “exercise authority” separately, they say women cannot be assigned authoritative positions in a church, such as elder. In 1 Tim. 3:12 and Titus 1:6 women were not assumed to be elders, as elders were described as heads of households, assumed to be a subset of men — it says they could have at most one wife and does not say husband. However 1 Tim. 2 is the place it says “I do not permit”. In contrast, Ephesians 5:4 NASB says “there must be no filthiness or silly talk”. If we took a similar way of interpreting the concepts separately we would conclude there could be no humor! The NASB notes on Ephesians 5:4 say that is not the correct interpretation, however. So what I find confusing is why it is so clear that the terms were meant separately as opposed to together.
–
Dr. Leahy, my favorite math professor in college, taught me a key insight. He said, always watch a proof case for the point at which they say, “it is clear that” — it is the place the speaker has taken a short cut. It is the most likely place for error. That is how I felt after reading this book. In a culture of primogeniture, in a time where women had no control over pregnancy and did not often live past age 40 and spent most of their lives rearing children, Paul made a decision to limit women’s speaking roles and excercise of authority over men. It is not so clear that is the Biblical answer today considering other scripture like Galations 3:28, that we are all adopted inheriting children of God. If we really believed in the priesthood of all believers, we might feel obligated to reconsider artificial gender based restrictions. Maybe in this 500th year of the reformation, we’ll reconsider the roots of the radical confirmation of the full humanity and full renewal in salvation of women that is so apparent in the gospels.
Originally published on Medium in the publication We are all Overcomers. Order historical fiction novel Rekindled with the button below.
