The Women's Issue

In four prior posts, we have set forth background data and assumptions for our thesis that the specific form or set of expectations about male-female roles in scripture were not matters of salvation in the NT and, consequently, are not salvation issues in our imaging Christ to our contemporary world.  This leaves these cultural roles as matters of  “indifferentia” and thereby subject to change without thereby affecting the everlasting gospel.

I have coined the term “indifferentia” as an attempt to capture what I understand to be Paul’s view of life expressed in his extended discussion in 1 Co 6: 8-40.  This concept may need further explication to avoid misunderstanding.  In 1 Co 6:, Paul is stating a viewpoint about self and world that seems to run cross grain to our contemporary focus on ‘self-actualization’ in the service of our secularized, presumed autonomous ‘ego’.  Today all of life is a playground for the expression of our presumed ‘autonomous ego’ and any restriction on our selfhood, even traditionally conceived commitments, such as marriage vows, tends to be viewed negatively in many quarters.

 Paul’s view of our life as ‘at the disposal of Jesus as Lord’ runs counter to the viewpoint of the secular self  -- incidentally, a concept under critical scrutiny in some corners of contemporary Psychology, as a viewpoint that is exploitative of both people and world.  Paul’s analogy of his own life as ‘the slave of the Lord’ is misunderstood as ‘world renouncing and self-denigrating’.  Paul’s concept is far richer than any limited treatment could exploit in this post.  In his asserting that ‘it is no longer I that live but Christ living in me’, he points to the view of self and world that both ‘trusts’ the master with one’s life -- here the living, gracious Lord – and serves as a ‘slave’ whose career concern is that of pleasing the master not the self.  This means that Paul ‘submits’ all of life’s energies to the ‘disposal’ of the Lord of life and this includes all planning, hoping, traveling, owning, marrying, working.  Self-actualization in the service of the ‘other’ would seem contradictory to the secular views of self-enhancement, and self-realization as these terms are explicated in the secular social sciences. 

In the Roman letter, the apostle views the surrender of self and life to servantship in Christ under the leading of the Spirit as ‘liberating’ rather than restricting.  Within this frame, Paul can have the awareness that whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.  It is from this perspective that he can speak of human social roles as “indifferentia”, namely, “were you a slave when you were called?  Don’t let it trouble you –“ (1 Co 6:21). 

As part of this life view, Paul in 1 Co 6:29-31 can call on us to live “as-if”,  which is spelled out as: ‘those who are married, as though not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them” (NIV).  This is a terribly rich, ‘imaginative’ concept of how the believer is to live under the Lordship of Christ.  Walter Brueggemann (Texts Under Negotiation, p. 14) addresses some of the ‘imaginative reconstruals of life’ which Paul’s concept of living ‘as-if’ might entail.  C.S. Lewis (The Four Loves) seems to be grappling with this same notion in his conceptualization that when the great love, God’s love or Agape, is present, then all the lesser loves can return into our life and take their rightful, subordinated place.  Even ‘eros’, which makes the most outrageous promises of faithfulness to the beloved, must be subordinated to Agape.   Lewis quotes approvingly the proper subordination of our loves exemplified by the Romantic Knight who tells his Lady: “I could not love thee half as much, loved I not honor more.” 

There is much here to ponder, or so I think.  If I am grasping Paul’s life view correctly, it certainly calls upon us to subordinate all of our social roles under the notion that as the ‘slave of  Christ’, my life energies are truly at the disposal of Jesus as Lord.  In Speech-Act theory (J.L. Austin and John Searle), when I confess “Jesus as Lord”, and when I am ‘self-involved’ in this utterance, it is not a simple, flat declarative statement but a commitment.  I am asserting what is the case with regard to my selfhood.  Jesus is Lord, is more than an ontological assertion of who Jesus is, but in its existential sense, it is a statement about myself.  This ‘claim’ will be validated as ‘I make it so,’ in the conduct which now flows from this ‘commitment.’ Within this ‘commissive’,  I am no longer an autonomous self in the secular sense, but a participatory self, now partaking of the life in Christ. 

Hopefully, the above analysis will indicate more fully why I am contending that the particularized, historical shape or form of male-female relationships, whether Patriarchal, as in the ancient world, or egalitarian, as in portions of our contemporary world, is to be considered “indifferentia”.  I pursue this subject out of fear that our clinging to what I consider a secularized shape of male-female relationships, namely Patriarchal – imported literally from the ancient ‘fleshly social structures’ --  wrongly burdens the gospel of Christ in the societies moving to a different patterning of these relationships.  Paul worked within these ‘burdensome’ role structures, but he clearly recognized that if one were a slave and could gain freedom, then do so (1 Co 6:21).  Surely we should be as gracious with women who seek the freedom of selfhood in our time.  For believing women, this freedom of selfhood will be submitted to the Lordship of Christ, as is to be the case with men.

In our prior posts we have put forward the concepts of  “intent” and “equivalence or correspondence” as critical to our application of the NT injunctions concerning the roles of males and females.   Also, we have further differentiated two-types of  “equivalence”, namely, ‘literal’ versus ‘dynamic’ (functional), utilizing by analogy this kind of distinction which is used to characterize the work of Biblical translation.  The equivalence which we are seeking is at the “application level” rather than at the level of  ‘text translation’.

We have differentiated three levels of “intent”.  It was suggested that these three levels could be regarded as (1) the ‘individualized’ intent with regard to the whole of Scripture as it bears on the believer’s life, intent level one in our model; (2) while intent level two could be considered a “collective” or congregational level of  Biblical instruction and finally (3) at level three we deal with the “specific behavioral” intent with respect to the day-by-day “practice” of  Scripture commands.  This method of classifying equivalence and intent was put forward as a didactic tool and not to be regarded as some fixed system implying discrete categories.  A chart is presented illustrating the model. 

We have entered a particular portion of 1 Tm 2:9 into our chart showing that a specific behavioral practice, our level three, is under investigation.  This level three behavior of a given individual is an explicit application of the meaning of our general behavioral intent  at level two – namely how to conduct ourselves appropriately in the household of God.  In the prior post, we demonstrated that level two behavior, the ‘collective’ intent, references the ‘meanings’ which our behavior has in both the believing community or congregation and in the larger community and here, of course, referencing the city of Ephesus.  Obviously, the ‘intent’ at level one of the believer seeking to know Christ and to be conformed to his life is always present and bearing upon actions at both level two and level three.  What is important in our Biblical study is to realize this complex network of ‘references’ and ‘meanings’ is present in any given case.  Level three is the point at which our Scripture knowledge ‘hits the street’ and becomes actualized in life.  It realizes the concern stated in prior posts that we both ‘know’ and ‘be’ the truth and this ties our behavior to our ‘intent level one’, namely, to know Jesus, who is our truth, and to be conformed to his life (John 14:6).  Our study of the Bible should aim at this kind of specificity. 

Let us use this particularized level three injunction which tells us specifically ‘how to behave’ in the household of God (1 Tm 2:9) as a means of ferreting out the ‘intent’, meaning and practice of such commands both ‘then’ and ‘now’.  At the “transcultural level of application” of the “intent” of the NT teaching with regard to social roles, we are attempting to move across the historical gap between the first century culture and the late twentieth century culture of our Western democracy.  Since we wish to honor Scripture as authority in our life, we are attempting to determine when we should bring forward the ‘literal NT practice’ and when we should seek a ‘dynamic (functional) equivalence’ in order to properly implement the ‘intent’ and ‘meaning’ of the original teaching.

We are not engaging in this process simply because some NT commands may be offensive to modern opinion.  Furthermore, we are attempting to lay out a systematic model for discerning the “intent” of Scripture commands in order that we may submit our lives to God in our culture.  Unless we can formulate reasonably clear ‘grounding’ for our practices, we are simply behaving “arbitrarily” in choosing to follow some commands and not following others.  The ‘proof text’ approach, which generally assumes that the ‘literal’ or ‘surface’ level of the NT text is some type of ahistorical absolute and must always be brought directly from the ancient culture to our modern one, lacks a coherent framework for meaning and thus becomes both arbitrary and inconsistent in its inability or its unwillingness to literally apply certain commands in our time.  We are not assuming that there are no difficulties in our path and that believers will agree readily on this approach, since they have been unable to agree on the traditional, or literal application method.  Our study calls for us to ‘persuade’ rather than ‘dogmatize’ about such matters.

In our prior post, we have already cited the fact that we do not bring forward the ‘literal NT practice with regard to Jesus direct command and example concerning washing feet (John 13:1-17).   The reader is undoubtedly aware that neither do we bring forward the ‘literal application’ of the NT injunction forbidding women to wear  ‘braided hair’, presumably only in the worship service of the congregation (though probably applicable in other settings, even in the home); the practice forbidden by 1 Tm 2:9, where Paul tells believing women not to braid their hair (Incidentally, this proscription was considered important enough to be repeated in 1 Pe 3:3 which was addressed to this same geographical region as first Timothy; see 1 Pe 1:1; Acts 2:9-10).

What is the rationale behind the traditional practices in interpretation and application of only selected commands?  In other words, what “criteria” grounds our practice in our choosing not to follow ‘literally’ this practice with regard to ‘braided hair’?  Let us beware lest we are found engaging in a sleight of hand maneuver in setting aside certain clear and direct commands no longer practiced in our churches.  It will not do to simply shrug these matters off as inconsequential.  Unless we can openly state what we are doing when we ignore certain texts and can ground the practice of “setting aside” plain commands in a meaningful framework, we are engaging in practices which we condemn in others of obeying only the convenient commandments.  In such instances, we would seem to have subsumed the authority of Scripture commands to the whim of contemporary culture.

 It is imperative that we come to grips with the fact that we frequently do not explain to ourselves or to others what we are doing with regard to our ‘unacknowledged’ recognition of the cultural conditionedness of both the Word of God and of our interpretation and application of that Word. When we pass over as trivial these plain commands, we seem to be “unaware” that we are accepting the fact that the “intent” and “meaning” of all Biblical commands, not just this particular one, is grounded in an interactive process between the Biblical text and the contemporary culture both “then” and “now”. 

The meaning of a text is not some ‘fixed’ entity apart from the culture.  This intimidates many Bible readers into “pretending” that we only “set aside” Scripture commands which “everybody understands to be cultural and not important.”  To repeat, what we have actually admitted in this practice of setting aside certain NT commands, is the ‘culturally conditioned’ nature of Scripture – all of it, not just some of it.  Our practice is evidence that we accept this fact and, consequently, we need to be honest and straightforward about what we are doing.  The gain for such a move toward full integrity would be one of “understanding” the “then” and “now” of Scripture.  It would allow for “change in our application” of Scripture as a result of our appropriate understanding of the “intent” of the original text which emerges from seeing it embedded in the culture of its time.  That original “intent” could then be applied in “appropriate” behaviors – sometimes literally the same, sometimes very different but dynamically (functionally) equivalent -- in our culture, whether we are dealing with social roles, organizational issues or forms of worship.

As a means of facing up to this problem of the cultural conditionedness of the Scripture, while arguing for its normative authority, we will explore, as a ‘test case’ for our proposed Scripture “application model,” the simple, specific, level three behavioral instruction in 1 Tm 2:9, namely, Paul’s instruction for the believing woman  ‘not to braid her hair’.  This will provide an opportunity to understand the significance of our concept of  “intent” as a controlling factor in Scripture application. 

Why does Paul insist that Christian women in first century Ephesus not assemble for worship in braided hair?   There is more here than we see at first glance.  The nature of human communication and the two aspects of Scripture, one it’s revelational and the other its ‘humanness’ are both involved.  Look first at the word “braid” (Gr. Plegma).  This word references a reasonably simple ‘technique’.  One can “braid” fiber for a rope, a very pragmatic, useful exercise of this technique.  One can “braid” strands of hair, presumably for ‘decorative’ purposes.  It could also be done as a simple, pragmatic, utilitarian exercise of the technique in the interest of keeping the hair under control for work activities.  In short, the word “braid” is a neutral symbol referencing a learned skill or technique.  

Why should Paul be concerned about the use of this skill or technique in caring for the hair?  Paul is going further than merely ‘describing’ a practice or skill.  He is ‘prescribing’ and ‘proscribing’ with respect to an actual cultural practice in Ephesus.  However, the church has rightly, or so I think, accepted that Paul is “regulating” a practice rather than “mandating” a once-for-all restriction.  Why is he ‘regulating’ this practice?  It is due to the “intent” of the practice and the “meaning” it has in a cultural context which is all determinative with regard to any form of  “evaluating” the exercise of the skill of  “braiding” as either positive or negative.

It would seem arbitrary, and therefore highly unlikely, that Paul  (or Peter, see 1 Pe 3:3) has any concern about the technique itself; but rather has in mind the “intent” of women engaging in this skill.  It is evident that women using the simple technique of  “braiding” the hair has some “culturally negative meaning” in this case.   Obviously, Paul is associating the use of this technique with a cultural concept of modesty (1 Tm 2:9).  In fact, this particular restriction clearly alerts us to the fact that “modesty, decency and propriety,” enjoined by Paul in 1 Tm 2:9 are all ‘culturally defined’.   He associates the use of this otherwise neutral technique of braiding the hair in this particular historical context with “immodesty”.  For emphasis, I repeat that this is a command which forbids the use of what is normally a “neutral” practice of a learned skill, because this otherwise neutral technique has taken on “culturally negative meanings” in first century Ephesus.  The meaning of this command demands consideration of the interaction between text and culture.  Apart from this cultural significance, the command would invoke an arbitrary ‘taboo’ on a completely neutral skill or technique.  This is not an isolated case.  All NT commands must likewise be grounded in this same interactive process and evaluated for ‘intent’ and ‘meaning’ before we attempt to transport them across historical, cultural settings, either ‘literally’ or in some form of  ‘dynamic (functional) equivalence’. 

To generalize this analysis of the concept of ‘immodesty’, we refer the reader to the discussion of how social facts are constituted and how they change in the work of the philosopher John Searle (The Social Construction of Reality).  For those who have the bound volume of my 1996 Pepperdine Lectures on Roles of Men and Women, a full treatment of the model of social facts is found in Lecture Two, pp. 11-13.  In brief, Searle points out that social facts are constituted, maintained and changed by cultural agreement with respect to meanings.  His model, in its abbreviated form for a social concept, would say that “X”, a woman’s braiding her hair,  counts as “Y”, immodesty, in “C”, namely 1^st century Ephesus in Paul’s time. 

Note that there is a very important distinction in this model between “counts as -generation” and “cause-generation” of a particular fact.  In other words, braided hair “counts as” immodesty, it is not a matter that braided hair “causes” immodesty.   Cause-effect relations apply in contexts such as the constructs in Physics.  Paul is dealing with “social constructs” which depend upon some measure of  ‘social consensus’ and when the social consensus changes, then the meaning of the concept will also change.  For example, for the apostle Paul and others of like persuasion, braided hair was an ‘indicator’ (counted-as) of immodesty in mid first century Ephesus.  This was an understanding “then”.  It is not “now” an indicator of immodesty in our historical setting even among believers in most religious settings today.  It, i.e., braided hair, no longer ‘counts as’ immodesty either in a church setting or in the larger culture of our time.  Since social facts are constituted by the ‘givens’ or consensual understandings of a culture, when the social consensus changes, then what ‘counts-as-what’ also changes.

Similarly, in first century Corinth a woman covering her head while praying or prophesying was an indicator “then” of respect for men and/or husbands (1 Co 11:2-16).  In general, what a woman does with her hair or wears on her head is not “now” an indicator, i.e., does not ‘count-as’ respect for men or husbands in our culture. What ‘counts-as’ respectful behavior has changed.   The ‘dynamic (functional) equivalence’ of the “intent” of Paul’s instructions “to properly respect each other,” male or female, can be brought forward from the first to the late twentieth century, but it would not be meaningful to bring forward the “literal practice” of the ancient culture in either case, namely that of forbidding women to braid their hair or enforcing the wearing of a veil.  This differentiation will be seen as critical to assessing commands about women’s silence, not teaching or leading men, and other matters in the passage under study. 

 We are establishing a rationale for systematically interpreting specific behavioral  commands, namely referencing the “intent” which is indexed by the culture, or understanding what ‘counts-as-what’ in a given cultural setting.  In the instance of braided hair, the rationale for not permitting women to exercise this skill in preparing their hair prior to assembling for worship is due to “its meaning” within the particular cultural setting in Ephesus at the time the letter is written to Timothy.  We would say today, this behavior in this city at this time would “send the wrong message” concerning the conduct of believers.  Furthermore, it may have had a “negative” meaning within the believing community and a “mixed” meaning in the larger community.  It is highly likely that, at least, upper-class segments of the Ephesian community would have viewed the practice favorably in that it provided a means of displaying high status when braiding the hair was further coupled with ‘plaiting in’ gold and the wearing of pearls. 

On the one hand, Paul, in this case, may be censoring and confronting a cultural practice from his view of the life in the Spirit as not in harmony with this behavior sanctioned by a segment of Ephesian society and, on the other hand, he may well be identifying the believers abstention from these practices as a desirable form of conformity with the sensitivities of some Greek moralist values which viewed pomp and display of wealth and power negatively. In any case, Paul evidently viewed this practice by believing Ephesian women living their life “as to the Lord” as not consistent with this behavior of braiding their hair and its particularized significance (what counted-as what) in sectors of first century Ephesian society.

What we hope has been made clear from the above analysis is that the “meaning” of the command to women “not to braid their hair” was embedded in and dependent upon the cultural context “then” and any application, whether one of  “literal correspondence” or one of  “dynamic (functional) equivalence” in our time “now” will likewise be embedded in and dependent upon the cultural context in our social situation.   We are belaboring this point because it seems to be so often ignored.  We are looking at this as one (not the) kind of ‘model’ for use in interpreting and applying Scripture. 

Indeed, we are contending that all “Scripture commands” are embedded-in and dependent-upon the historical-cultural  “meanings” in which they were delivered.   It should be clear that our “ignoring” the practice of  forbidding “braided hair”, if we are consistent, is recognition that “social change” both changes the meaning of “practices” found in Scripture and should likewise be considered as a potential justification for our “changing” practices today.  Our setting aside this direct command is recognition that its  ‘intent’ can be realized in very different ways in our culture.  We should still obey the ‘intent’ of this command which called for appropriate conduct in the household of God and a concern for the reputation of the gospel  in the larger community.  This is “not” to be read as meaning that we will never bring forward any “literal” practice from the NT into our contemporary setting.  Scripture is normative and authoritative and we must justify case by case our application of its commands.  If we shift from the ‘literal practice’ to one put forward as “dynamically (functionally) equivalent”, we must ‘persuade’, with an open statement of our position (not dogmatize), the believing community that this is appropriate and honors Scripture intent.

In review, our analysis thus far should warn us that when we lift a “literal practice” from the first century culture and “apply” it in the “literal or formal correspondence mode”  today, we may be treating first century culture, the container of the ‘intent’ or ‘meaning’ of the command, as though this first century culture itself was God’s revelation to us about our behavior.  If this were the case, then we must implement a ‘literal’ correspondence mode of following the command and we must therefore insist that it is wrong for believing women to braid their hair today.  If we use the ‘literal’ correspondence model as our sole framework for interpretation and practice, then this restriction on ‘braided hair’ is not optional.  The point is not trivial.  It makes very clear that the meaning of all NT commands is grounded in this same interactive process between text and culture.   

We recognize that this will be seen as opening the proverbial ‘Pandora’s box’, but it is unavoidable, or so I think.  To fail to move away from the ‘literal’ proof-text style of Scripture use leaves us stranded in an arbitrary, pick-and-choose mode of operation.  For the faint of heart, “come on in, the water is fine”.  Determining ‘intent’ and ‘meaning’ as the keys to ‘application’ of Scripture today may be difficult, but it is not impossible, and the results are far less arbitrary than the traditional alternative which leads to endless “division over change.”

Yes, indeed, we have stated that each and every command is embedded in culture and must be examined in its own right.  No, it does not mean that there are no instances of our proper utilization of a direct, literal ‘correspondence’ in our practice derived directly from a literal application of NT practice.  Is this a tough assignment?  I suspect that it will prove to be.  However, we should be prepared to roll up our sleeves and get to our task, since failure to work out this problem of interpretation requiring attention to ‘text within culture’ will leave us guilty of canonizing, not only the ancient culture, but also canonizing our contemporary intuitions as evidenced by the fact that  few, if any, congregations today forbid believing women from braiding their hair along with numerous other direct NT commands which we simply set aside with little or no acknowledgment.  Furthermore, this same scrutiny can be applied to commands we so readily bind in our historical time and to our wrangling over the argument from silence in the text.  This does not mean that we think everything is up for grabs but rather is based on an assured view that Scripture is robust enough to speak its message both “then” and “now” within our human condition, namely culture. 

What then is the rationale for not ‘literally’ implementing this command in 1 Tm 2:9?  I suspect that it is often “set aside” without any clear understanding other than “well, we all know that we are not expected to do that today”.   This is an example of our  ‘drifting’ without understanding along with culture, and it simply is happenstance that our practice  is appropriate, or so I believe,  on this particular point.   I think that when we understand why it is correct to set aside this simple, direct command “now”, we will be in position to understand much more controversial  “changes” in the wind concerning shifts in “worship forms” and in “social roles of men and women from “then” to “now”. 

In summary, we are learning that the ‘intent’ or  ‘meaning’ of a command was embedded in culture “then” and our application of that ‘intent’ or ‘meaning” in the “now” of our historical time will likewise be referenced directly to our cultural situation.  This establishes the “ground for change” in the form of our obedience rather than leaving it to intuition, happenstance or simply drifting unthinkingly with culture.  It also retains the normativeness of Scripture by honoring the “intent” which allows “transcultural application” of authoritative teaching.   I take note again that we are fully cognizant that this is asking us to engage in serious work on a complex task where we cannot expect simple proof text answers and our task will require humility as we seek to persuade rather than dogmatize.

Perhaps many Bible readers will want to shrug off our discussion of why we do not literally implement Paul’s command to believing women not to braid their hair.  However, our ‘test case’ has provided us with a delineation of a framework for approaching NT commands.  We now turn to a ‘hot button topic’.  Let us press forward to consider Paul’s injunction in 1 Tm 2:11-12 to the effect that:  “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.  I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

As we have stated, we are not engaging in exegetical issues, as such, in our explication of our ‘application model.’   In fact, we are assuming that the English translation for these verses reflects a clear statement of the fact that Paul is enjoining believing women to ‘learn in quietness and submissiveness.’  Also, they are being restricted from teaching or exercising authority over men.  It is not feasible to turn aside to consider the significant ‘nuances’ which can be stressed in the text.  An excellent exegetical presentation of these matters from a scholar within Churches of Christ can be found in Carroll D. Osburn’s book, “Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity” vol. 1, Chapter 11 (Admonitions to Women in 1 Tim. 2:8-15) by Thomas C. Geer, Jr.  Our concern lies elsewhere in assessing whether we should transport this command in a ‘literal’ correspondence mode from first century Ephesus to our situation in a Western democracy where the cultural role expectations are rapidly shifting from the pattern in effect in Paul’s day.  Admittedly, we are contending that Paul’s “intent” in these restrictions upon women in the first century is to “regulate” a cultural “given” and not a “mandate” about a ‘learning’ style or the practice of ‘leading’.  This ‘cultural given’ defined the social role expectations for women in this particular historical time.  As in the instance of  ‘braiding hair’, it is not the ‘skill’ (learning, teaching, leading) that is the focus of concern but the cultural meaning which these activities are associated with at the time Paul is writing.  Paul’s ‘intent’ or ‘meaning’ in these commands has to do with living one’s life ‘as to the Lord’ in whatever cultural context we are called.  

Let it be remembered that in prior posts I have stated my assumptions and offered evidence to the effect that all of Paul’s instructions about women’s roles would most likely have been in awareness in Ephesus.  This refers to the discussion of ‘what’ was known by ‘whom’ and ‘when’ in the prior posts.  In the midst of his relatively long-term Ephesian ministry, Paul wrote to the Corinthians and likewise instructs that women (wives, in particular) should be silent in the assembly and learn in submission, in that they should ask their questions of their husbands at home.  My particular model allows Paul’s language to have its simplest, direct meaning.  Its meaning and intent in Corinth and Ephesus with respect to proper order and regard for honor-shame considerations in social roles including male and female relations in the ancient culture is an exemplification in that time of  ‘loving the neighbor, becoming all things to others to win them to Christ, providing things honorable in the sight of all and even foregoing our rights in the interest of others’; all of these subjects are addressed by Paul.  It is, so I reason, in full conformity with “what-counted-as-what” in mid first century Ephesus and Corinth.   

My proposed model of application allows these commands to carry their simplest meaning.  This, so I believe, makes the most sense of the cultural data for both Corinth and Ephesus (see prior posts for this data) and allows us to recognize that these ‘prescriptions and proscriptions’ were appropriate in the ‘cultural givens’ concerning male-female hierarchical relations “then”.  However, our ‘cultural givens’ exactly reverse the honor-shame considerations by making it disrespectful to women and offensive in the larger cultural context to impose the restrictive  “specifics” of first century behaviors “now” on our particular twentieth century setting. 

In order to truly honor the authority of scripture, we must honor its “intent”.  The intent “then” was to order our life (level three specific behaviors) under God in ways that brought respect on the household of God (level two concerns).  To effect the “intent” of these particular commands in our modern Western democracy “now” requires that we live our lives “as to the Lord” in a social system where male-female roles are moving toward an egalitarian model.  Women no longer learn in a passive, quiet manner and women are allowed by ‘law and custom’ to lead and teach men.  I repeat, that the skill of  ‘braiding hair’ was not the concern of Paul’s restrictive command but rather the ‘meaning’ which the practice carried in the ‘then’ cultural scene.  Likewise, the skill of ‘learning, teaching and leading’, though the ‘penultimate’ focus, it was not the ‘ultimate’ concern of Paul’s restrictive command.  The ‘ultimate’ concern was rather the ‘meaning’ which these practices carried in the ‘then’ cultural scene.  When these associations and ‘meanings’ change, then the ‘literal’ correspondence mode of application must give way to a dynamic (functional) equivalence mode in order for us to implement Paul’s “intent” in the “now” of our historical setting.

Post number three and also four are pertinent here.  We have already demonstrated that there is a very familiar ‘ring’ from the culture for the injunctions about a woman being submissive, silent in public assemblies, inquiring of their husbands at home, and not teaching or having authority over men.  Paul’s injunctions are parallel to the culture except in his ‘referencing’ the filling of our social roles “as to the Lord.”  We have previously referenced parallel statements outside the Judeo-Christian Scriptures which demonstrate that Paul is using ‘cultural givens’ of the time.  He will be readily understood by his listeners, both Jew and Gentile, when he stresses the above expected behaviors for women of this historical epoch.  However, we must behave very differently in honoring Paul’s intent in the ‘givens’ of our culture, where the old hierarchical patterns of male-female relating no longer have a ‘familiar’ ring but rather invoke ‘shame’ in ever enlarging circles of Western Democracies.

Using the ‘grounding’ of the cultural relevance of the above commands from Post Number Three, I simply note that my model again sees these instructions embedded in the “then” of the culture with regard to their ‘intent’ and ‘meaning’.  The ‘intent’ is related to our ‘behavior in the household of God’ in such a way as to upbuild the believing community and, at the same time, to present the proper model of conduct to the unbelieving community.  Paul and other NT writers reference our concern for the proper kind of reputation with outsiders, not just for church leaders as in 1 Tm 3:7, but for all believers (1 Tm 6:1; 1 Co 14:23; 1 Co 11:5-6; 1 Co 11:13-14; Titus 2:3;Titus 2:5; Titus 2:9; 1 Pe 3:1-2; 1 Pe 2:13-17; 1 Co 10:27-33; 1 Co 9:19-23).  These verses make it clear that this instruction, repeated over and over, is designed to orient what we have termed our specific behaviors at level three and also our collective behaviors at level two to the ‘imaging of Christ’ in the world in a manner that makes the life in Christ commendable for honorable reasons.  This, likewise, demonstrates that the specific commands concerning our conduct as believers is embedded in and dependent upon the cultural meanings “then” and will also be embedded in and dependent upon the cultural meanings “now”.   Enacting our form of obedience in a relevant manner – relevant with respect to cultural meanings – is not an option, it is a necessity, if we would honor the authority of scripture.  Since cultural meanings change, then ‘change’ is one aspect of faithful obedience.

I am aware that many readers may be following this presentation of the model with a major reservation.  Some will be thinking, ‘Oh, but this is not pertinent to the change of meaning about women not teaching or leading men because Paul appeals to the creation narrative and thereby makes these particular commands ‘transcultural’ and unchanging.’  I wish now to bring to bear our ‘application model’ on the first one of the two passages that directly make what seems to be a  reference for grounding this particular form of women’s roles in the narrative of the creation of Adam and Eve.  This verse immediately follows those discussed above and is considered to provide the first part of Paul’s rationale for enjoining passive learning upon women and restricting them from teaching and leading men.

In 1 Timothy 2:13 we read, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (NIV).  This particular text is key for grounding the transcultural notion of the unchanging nature of male-headship, female-submission.  In previous posts, we have already cited data to substantiate our claim that a hierarchical male-female relationship was the “literal practice”  throughout the ancient world  -- both in and out of the Judeo-Christian stream of history. Even secular research literature in cultural anthropology recognizes that essentially all cultures until recent times have been based on a dominant role for males and a subordinate role for females.  The theories to account for this historical situation in both Biblical and non-Biblical cultures include consideration of functional matters of the necessity of confining the roles of women to childbearing, childrearing and family nurture – all tasks which restrict the woman’s experience in public life and thereby make her more vulnerable in roles outside the family concerns.    Now, the question becomes whether we should follow the ancient historical pattern and make male-headship, female-submission the “literal practice” in contemporary church life.  It seems evident that the ancient type of role structure would be especially restrictive with regard to women leading and teaching men.  If one works from within the interpretive framework which we are proposing, then we must evaluate the scripture passages providing instructions referencing male headship and female submission in light of the ‘cultural givens’ of the historical world of the past.  The instructions in the letter to Timothy provide a case in point. The scripture verse in 1 Tm 2:13 is a critical one utilized to demonstrate that the form of the male-female relationship in the NT period is grounded in creation and cannot be changed simply because the larger social context has changed male-female roles.  It simply states:  “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tm 2:13 NIV).

1 Tm 2:13 contains some puzzling factors relating to what is ‘communicated’ by this short verse.  After assessing the informational yield of this text, I will propose to ground it’s “meaning” in the cultural setting.  Once more, we will attempt to ascertain the “intent” and “meaning” of the verse in light of its cultural grounding in the city of Ephesus.  Any  “application”  (level three) for us “now” will be referenced to the “intent” and we must inquire whether our application today requires  a “literal” correspondence in our practice in order to honor this Scripture.  But first, let us consider the ‘informational’ content in this communication.

Unfortunately, for derivation of meaning, this verse is ‘over learned’ in that we, as modern readers versed in a Biblical tradition, find it difficult to isolate the wording of the text from all of the ‘context’ in our heads from our ‘acculturation’ with regard to its use in the church setting.  The reader of this post should pause and repeat the text (1 Tm 2:13) which states:  “For Adam was formed first, then Eve”(NIV).  Having done so, hopefully repeating the above aloud for some aural feedback to our cognitive encounter, the reader should be surprised at the small amount of information conveyed and should then begin asking, what is the “intent” of this brief statement?   To grasp the “intent” we will first analyze the informational “content” of this text.

It should be self-evident to the reader that the “information” output of this brief scripture is limited to nothing other than knowledge of the sequence of the creation of the man and the woman.  A very limited bit of information indeed.  By way of illustration, consider some contemporary information segments syntactically parallel to 1 Tm 2:13:

   (1)  Robert was born first, then Elizabeth (7 words, syntactically equivalent).  Or, since we

                cannot create humans, let us talk of  ‘humanoid robots’ and have our scientist inform 

               us that

    (2)  Robert was invented first, then Elizabeth (Again, 7 words, syntactically equivalent).

Note how little information is provided in this latter instance.  We are not even free to assume that Robert was the prototype.  This may or may not have been the case.  In fact, the informational content in these two illustrative sentences is restricted to mere sequencing of origination. 

Similarly, this limited informational output is the case with our Biblical text, namely,  “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (7 words, syntactically equivalent to our illustrative sentences).   Surely, it must be admitted that this singular reference to creation provides little in the way of informational content.  Now, we would ask, what is the interpreter, who holds to this text as the grounds for maintaining the permanency of male headship on the basis of the appeal to the creation account, to do with this scripture?   It simply tells us the “order of origin” and nothing else.  Let us suppose that we are informed by the traditional interpreter that in the time in which Paul wrote this statement, it would have been “understood” to mean that Adam being first in order of origin would consequently have pre-eminence over the woman.  We would certainly have the right to scrutinize our “seven word text” and say that we cannot find this informational content in the verse. 

In fact, we are correct.  The information suggested in the traditional interpretation is not  “in the text,” rather it is in the “ cultural context” which it is anticipated will be in the “readers’ head.” 

In short, in the traditional interpretation we are being asked to “bring to” the verse a “background” of understanding from the cultural interpretation of the first century.  Indeed, the traditional interpretation wishes to move to an appeal to a larger “framework” of  “meaning” – such as the law of primogeniture.  This cultural rule gave pre-eminence to the first born of ancient males in the family and possibly here it is assumed that it could be extended by some kind of analogy as being applicable – not just to a first born male in reference to other males in the household, but to a male-female order or sequence of origin.  I am not aware that this kind of extension of “meaning” is elsewhere given to the notion of “primogeniture” either in or out of scripture with regard to male-female order of birth.  But, let us grant that this is an acceptable move. There is a troublesomeness about the law of primogeniture from a Biblical point of view, in that God is presented as bent on overturning man’s concern with equating ‘first-born’ with pre-eminence.  The story of  Jacob and Esau goes to great length to show how the first born is rejected and the later born son is placed in pre-eminence.  A factor picked up in the NT to illustrate God’s election as the primary ground of blessing (Romans 9:13) rather than primogeniture.  Jacob follows this same reversal of primogeniture in blessings Joseph’s sons by preferring Ephraim over Manasseh (Genesis 48:14).  Notwithstanding this scriptural tendency to down play birth order, there was a strong predilection in Hebrew, Greek and Roman culture to assign primacy on the basis of birth order and this “cultural given” seems to be accepted and used as the basis for appealing to order of origin with regard to man (Adam) and woman (Eve).

However, the problem in making this kind of interpretive move is not in this ‘extension’ of primogeniture, as such, but lies in the direction of what is happening when we are forced by our search for meaning to move from the verse before us to some larger context in order to “give it meaning.”    When this larger framework is invoked or “brought to bear”on this text in order to “add” a great deal more information than this brief text itself  provides, this, of course, is to concede our main thesis in our post, namely, that we utilize the ‘meaning framework’ of the contemporary “cultural understanding” to determine the  “intent” of this particular passage.  The meaning was derived in the interaction of the text with the cultural givens “then”, and, furthermore, our application today will require a “meaning” derived from interaction between text and our culture “now.”  In other words, the meaning of this verse in mid first century Ephesus would have been dependent on the reader or hearer ‘then’ understanding what ‘counted-as-what’ in that culture.  The reader or hearer ‘then’, would have to ‘bring-to’ this verse a cultural understanding that – in the consensual understanding of that historical epoch – being first born gave a pre-eminence which could be extrapolated ‘as an example’ of keeping the cultural order in place ‘then’ of male headship and female submission.  The culture is providing the major portion of the meaning and the verse simply appeals to a literary fact that in the creation narrative the man ‘preceded’ the woman in the order of creation. It should be evident that the example or illustration from creation provides little in the way of informational content and the cultural awareness is providing the bulk of the meaning in this verse in 1 Timothy 2:13.

In summary, the “meaning in first century Ephesus” for the appeal to the order of origin for Adam and Eve was derived from the larger ‘cultural framework’ – namely that they should observe male-headship, female-submission in learning, leading and teaching men –  It is simply not there in this brief text, but is “brought to it” from a cultural tradition. The example of Adam’s priority in creation was in conformity with cultural practice in the ancient world of male pre-eminence and could thereby be used ‘then’, in Ephesus, as an example for ensuring conformity to contemporary cultural practice.  However, it is not in conformity with cultural practice in some sectors of modern Western Democracies and the example of Adam’s priority in creation is not applicable in such settings but rather has only historic interest today.  In this regard, Adam’s priority in creation is like the illustration of “master-slave” relations used as ‘illustrative’ and as ‘exampling’ our relation to God and Christ.   These examples have ‘historical’ significance but are no longer the clearest examples which can be used in communicating the nature of our relationship to God.  These ancient cultural and Biblical ‘examples’ can be used today only when we supply the cultural meanings surrounding such roles. 

But, specifically with regard to 1 Timothy 2:13, it matters not whether this larger traditional framework ‘brought-to’ this verse is from the Biblical culture or the larger culture.  In either case, we are not deriving the ground for male headship from this text itself  -- which, for those who argue from a ‘literal correspondence mode’ purportedly offered a grounding in creation for hierarchical male-female relations.  It simply is not there in the words of the text but is ‘brought-to’ the verse from the cultural knowledge expected to be ‘in the heads’ of the hearer-reader.  Now, I wish to point out that, on the one hand, though the brief wording of this text is  “unclear” with regard to its meaning, if it’s meaning was to substantiate male-headship, female-submission, on the other hand the “culture” of the time is very clear in establishing male-headship, female submission.  So, the combination of the information about  ‘order of origin’ and the ‘cultural givens’ about contemporary male-female roles yields a ‘meaning’ appropriate to the first century setting.  In summary, the meaning was the result of an interaction process between text and culture “then” and it’s meaning today will be the result of an interaction process between text and culture “now”.  We must take into account the change in male-female role meanings in our culture today, if we are to properly implement the ‘intent’ and ‘principle’ underlying the instructions in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 today.  Culture or “what-counts-as-what” in our social setting has changed significantly from the first century to the present. 

I have previously provided the documentary evidence for the concept that this larger cultural framework (ancient culture, within and without the Judeo-Christian world) would have viewed male pre-eminence as the “appropriate” role expectancy and this “cultural given” provides the setting for determining the intent and application of this verse in first century Ephesus. That ‘man was the head of woman’ and ‘the husband was the head of the wife’, that women were not normally to speak out in public but should communicate with their husbands in the home, that women were not expected to be in public roles of leadership over males and that they were to learn in a quiet, submissive manner’, all of these were ‘cultural givens’ whose announcement would have elicited at most a ‘yawn’ in the first century Roman world and, in fact, these matters were ‘cultural givens’ long before Paul ever made appeal to such and this would have been the case in cultures remote from the Biblical world as well.  In such a cultural time, it would require only a ‘hint’ in the direction of hierarchical male-female roles by the text itself in order to ‘bring to’ this verse the cultural understanding of male headship and female submission in sex role relations.  This, it seems, is exactly what is happening here by intent in this simple, content-abbreviated text in 1 Timothy 2:13.  There is no need for Paul to explicate his meaning in some extended fashion, the culture informs the meaning.   However, by making this interpretive move, we are conceding that it is exactly the case that the meaning frame of the larger culture  ‘grounds’ the “meaning” and the “intent” of this verse.  The above analysis along this same path has shown that this same procedure is required to ground the meaning and intent of the verses immediately preceding and later analyses in later posts will attempt to demonstrate the same for verses immediately following this one. 

This post has grown over-long and we need to pause before looking at each of the Biblical verses used by those utilizing solely a ‘literal correspondence mode’ in interpreting the Scriptures with reference to social roles.  This sole appeal to a ‘literal correspondence’ turns an illustrative example used by the apostle for contemporary application into an unchanging absolute.  This, or so I propose, canonizes the cultural factors and the contemporary illustrations or Biblical examples and thereby overturns the ‘transcendent’ intent and principles underlying the apostle’s instruction.  This, I judge, will make the gospel hostage to culture, it simply happens to be the ancient Biblical one or closely associated cultures of ‘late antiquity’ as seen in the Roman Empire of apostolic times.  Fortunately, at least since the pre-civil war days (1861-65) in the U.S.A., we have realized that the scripture appeal and use of examples from master-slave relations in illustrating our relationship to God does not thereby ‘canonize’ these ‘cultural social roles’ as part of the unchanging gospel (See Willard Swartley on Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women).  We perceive the ‘intent’ and ‘purpose’ with regard to these models and properly see the transcendent meaning beyond the ancient culture.  It is time that we reconceptualize other Social Roles and the ‘expectancies’ or behavioral correlates of these roles especially now with regard to the changing roles of men and women in Western Democracies.  Paul’s view of ‘as-if’(my concept of indifferentia), as noted at the outset in 1 Corinthians 6:29-31, with respect to the social role in which we are called seems to be an appropriate return to where we began our extended analysis. 

Grace, in Christ

            Kenneth Shrable, Ph.D.