Home|Contents

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.” NEXT