In the last two posts I introduced the complementarian assignment in the Practical Theology seminar and provided a summary of William Webb’s perspective. Here is my response to Webb:

Response to William Webb’s “redemptive-movement” hermeneutic
The over-arching concern with Webb’s hermeneutic is that it essentially invalidates the moral authority of the New Testament. If the New Testament teaching represents just one stage of movement toward an “ultimate ethic,” Christians must at all cost discover this ethic. But then this ambiguous “ultimate” teaching (itself a moving target, since culture is in flux) becomes the standard for Christian living, rather than the New Testament itself. The subtle but massive error is that apostolic teaching, instead of serving as the culmination of God’s revelation (II Pet. 1:20-21; Heb. 1:1-2), becomes subservient to the private, subjective interpretation of the individual Christian—not to mention the potentially conflicting private interpretations of millions of other Christians.
This is not the same thing as recognizing that everyone must test New Testament commands to see if they are culturally relative or transcultural. Webb would acknowledge (with complementarians) that greeting others with a holy kiss in America would probably not have the welcoming effect that it had in Paul’s day, and therefore should be replaced with culturally sensitive behavior that does send a welcoming message. The difference between Webb and many evangelicals (like me) is that we believe that we are under the permanent moral authority of the New Testament and are therefore obligated to obey its commands whenever we are in the same situation as addressed in the New Testament commands. For example, as a parent, a husband, a wife, a child, a master (supervisor), or a slave (employee), the commands of Paul remain applicable. I don’t need to first find the “redemptive spirit” in the text, as that would be frustratingly ambiguous. Though implications abound, I’ll restrict my comments below to slavery and the role of women, arguing (contra Webb) that the two issues are very different.
The liberation of slaves is implicit in the biblical texts themselves. The eighth commandment (a prohibition against stealing) coupled with Exod. 21:16 (“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”) lays an initial framework. Responding to these texts, Theodore Weld noted in his 1838 work The Bible Against Slavery : “The eight commandment forbids the taking of any part of that which belongs to another. Slavery takes the whole. Does the Bible which prohibits the taking of any thing from him, sanction the taking of every thing?”
The New Testament never commands people to own slaves, but rather regulates the institution and teaches principles that led to its abolition. Paul admonished slaves, “If you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity” (I Cor. 7:21). He also tells Philemon to welcome back his runaway slave Onesimus “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother” (Philemon 1:16) and to “receive him as you would receive me ” (vs. 17). Paul expresses confidence in Philemon’s “obedience” and that Philemon will do “even more” than Paul has said (vs. 21). This strongly implies that Paul wanted (and expected) Philemon to grant freedom to Onesimus. And if freedom should be granted to runaway slaves, how much more to those who were loyal and productive?
The following chart shows that the Bible no more commands slavery than it mandates the persecution of Christians. I Peter 2:18-23 actually connects the two, noting that Christian servants ought to serve even cruel masters. Webb fails to distinguish between circumstances or events (e.g., slavery, persecution of Christians) and apostolic commands (e.g., obey masters, joyfully accept plundering). The existence of slavery in the first-century Roman Empire does not mean Christians were commanded (or even encouraged) to own slaves.
——————————————————————————————-
Paul’s Attitude on Slavery
Text: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. (Eph 6:5-8)
Implication: Slaves should faithfully serve their masters as part of their Christian witness. There is no necessary inference that slavery was appropriate or that masters were always just or kind.
Paul’s Attitude on Persecution
Text: For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. (Heb. 10:34)
Implication: The joyful acceptance of unjust loss in persecution is commended. But clearly God does not advocate the looting and pillaging of property owned by Christians.
——————————————————————————————–
On a related note, Webb claims that master/slave relationships are vastly different than employer/employee relationships in twenty-first century western culture, such that Christians should not directly apply Eph. 6:5-9 but rather follow the “redemptive spirit” of the text. While there are clearly differences (e.g., employees today return to their own homes at the end of daily work), it seems Webb overstates his case. For one, slavery in Paul’s day often included the ability to earn one’s freedom, and a higher socio-economic situation than free day labors (cf. Matt. 20:1-7). And in our day, employers still direct the activities of their subordinates, who face dismissal if they are perpetually negligent. Of course, in democratic cultures we have “checks and balances” such that employees can sue unjust bosses, but the basic authority structure is still there.
Regarding the roles of women, Webb’s hermeneutic also runs into trouble due to his assumption that mutuality and hierarchy between men and women cannot coexist. For example, in I Cor. 11:3 we’re told that the head of a woman is her husband. Paul draws inferences from this verse about the way praying and prophesying is to be conducted in the formal assembly (11:4-6). Then Paul further grounds his statements with the order of creation and what this tells us about how man and woman are related (11:7-10). Everything so far is “hierarchical” and (conveniently), according to Webb, “culturally specific.” But in the very next verses Paul affirms mutuality: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.” Webb argues that these latter verses represent a “seed idea” of a more redemptive, dignified view of women that would emerge in future generations. It seems arbitrary for Webb to put I Cor. 11:3-10 in one category and 11:11-12 in another. Webb begs the question by bringing his assumption to the text. A more likely reading of I Cor. 11:3-12 is that Paul saw men and women as both mutually interdependent and possessing functional differences with regard to their marital roles.
Given I Cor. 11:3-12, other texts that appeal to the creation account should not surprise us. For example, I Tim. 2:11-15 restricts women from pastoral offices based on the order of creation and transgression. The passage is difficult, and cannot be scrutinized in detail here. But Webb’s exegesis is clearly unconvincing, as he assumes that women in Paul’s day were forbidden from teaching because their ignorance, lack of education, and inexperience made them more susceptible to deception. But Paul grounds his argument on Eve’s deception—which surely was not a result of her ignorance regarding the one restrictive (and simple!) command of God relayed by Adam. Rather, deception in the Bible is usually a moral (rather than intellectual) category: Eve’s deception is not like being fooled by a mischievous auto mechanic into spending hundreds of dollars to fix things on one’s car that aren’t broken. That would be ignorant, but not “transgression.” Yet Paul calls Eve a transgressor because of her being deceived. Paul is arguing from Eve’s action at the Fall to a general principle about gender-based restrictions on teaching and governing in the church; Paul is not arguing from the condition of women in his culture. Webb has to import such thinking into the text.
As we’ve seen, Paul often roots gender-based role differentiation in the creation order (I Cor. 11:8-9; I Tim. 2:13, note the γὰρ). Elsewhere, Paul bases his commands to husbands and wives in the Christ-church dynamic which marriage was meant to reflect (Eph. 5:22-33)—if wifely submission to husband was only culturally relative, and should now proceed identically in both directions, then by implication the church and Jesus Christ should now identically submit to one another, which is unfathomable. So when Peter tells wives to win their husbands without a word (I Pet. 3:1-6), the missionary purpose behind this injunction is not the only factor at work. It is more likely that principles such as those found in texts like Eph. 5:22-33 and I Tim. 2:9-15 (which make no explicit reference to evangelism) were informing Peter’s instruction.
As with slavery, readers who are convinced that the Bible supports polygamy or concubinage are more likely to follow Webb’s approach. But the New Testament (and the creation account) shows that monogamy was always God’s design. That is why Christ and the apostles referred to creation when teaching on marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:3-12), male-female roles (I Cor. 11:3-12; I Tim. 2:11-15), and homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-27). Furthermore, with the institution of the New Covenant came Holy Spirit enabling for obedience: God’s laws are now written upon our hearts (Heb 8:8-13), and Jesus sets a higher standard (cf. Mat. 5-7). God’s final revelation is all we need for life and godliness (II Pet. 1:3).
Conclusion
Webb’s hermeneutic is severely flawed by a failure to apply biblical theology. The New Testament, as God’s final revelation, possesses final moral authority for Christians today. Though there is a clear redemptive thread from the Old to New Testament, we are never encouraged to go beyond the New Testament. Though it regulates slavery, the New Testament never commands Christians to own slaves and actually implies that freedom is preferable (I Cor. 7:21; Philemon). Marriage (unlike slavery) is a creation ordinance, and the apostles root their instruction on gender-based roles in marriage and the church on the order of creation, pattern of transgression, and the Christ-church dynamic, both of which are transcultural.
The paper can be read in PDF format.

Following up on my last post, here is a summary of William Webb’s perspective:
Introduction
William Webb has set forth an ingenious apologetic for egalitarianism in his book Slaves, Women & Homosexuals (IVP, 2001). This paper will focus on Webb’s arguments regarding slavery and the roles of women, asking the question: If biblical principles suggest that slavery should be abolished, even though the Bible regulates slavery, shouldn’t women also be “liberated” (i.e., released from having to submit to their husbands and allowed equal opportunity to attain pastoral offices), even though the Bible prescribes gender-based leadership restrictions? Before answering, I will attempt to provide a succinct and fair representation of Webb’s view.
Webb’s “redemptive-movement” hermeneutic (as it applies to slavery and women’s roles)
Webb observes that there are two ways of approaching the biblical texts: (1) with a redemptive-movement appropriation of Scripture, which encourages movement beyond the original application of the text in the ancient world, or (2) with a static approach that “understands the words of the texts in isolation from their ancient historical-cultural context” and with minimal “emphasis on their underlying spirit.” Webb describes his redemptive-movement hermeneutic with an XàYàZ principle. The X represents the perspective of the original culture on a particular topic (slavery, women, etc.). The Y represents the specific words in the biblical text (which Webb calls “an ethic ‘frozen in time’”). The Z represents “an ultimate ethic”—God’s ideal to which the Bible is moving, though the New Testament may not represent that arrival. Webb derived his interpretive grid by observing that the Scriptures (Y) generally offer a more gracious and humane view of slaves and women than the surrounding culture of their day (X), but still one that is less than the ultimate ethic (Z). We begin with the example of slavery, and proceed to the issue of women and leadership.
Slavery in the Bible and in the culture of its day
In the Old Testament, slaves were regarded as the property of others (Exod. 12:44; 21:20-21; Lev. 22:11). Israelites struggling with infertility used slaves to produce offspring (Gen. 16:1-4; 30:3-4, 9-10). The sexual violation of a free woman was more severely punished than that of a slave woman (compare Deut. 22:25-27 with Lev. 19:20-22). Slaves could be beaten, provided they survived for a few days afterward (Exod. 21:20-22). The very lives of slaves were less regarded than that of free people (Exod. 21:28-32).
However, the biblical texts are significantly more gracious than the ancient Near Eastern culture of the Old Testament era. Israelite slaves had a generous number of days off (Deut. 16:10-12) and a weekly Sabbath rest (Exod. 23:12). They could participate in worship services (Exod. 12:44; Deut. 12:12,18). Hebrew slaves could earn their release after six years of service (Lev. 25:39-43; Jer. 34:8-22), and (in addition) receive material assistance (Deut. 15:12-18). Biblical legislation limited the severity of physical beatings (Exod. 21:20-21) and any slave damaged by his or her master automatically obtained freedom (Exod. 21:26-27). Female slaves likewise received protection in the form of food, clothing, and conjugal rights (Exod. 21:7-11).
According to Webb, the New Testament improves the situation for slaves, but falls short of prescribing God’s ultimate intention of emancipation. Slaves are told to obey their earthly masters as they would Christ (Eph. 6:5-6), while masters are told to stop threatening their slaves, and to remember that God is the ultimate Master of all (Eph. 6:9). Nevertheless, even the New Testament does not teach abolitionism. Christian masters are not straightforwardly commanded to abolish slavery, only to take care of the slaves whom they own. While kinder and gentler than the culture of its day, the “ultimate ethic” of freedom for all is only found by extrapolation.
Women in the Bible and in the culture of its day
The Old Testament likewise contains some “oppressive” teaching about women. For example, we see examples of polygamy (Gen. 29:14-30) and concubinage (Gen. 35:25-26). The Mosaic Law institutes an unequal valuation in vow redemption (Lev. 27:1-8) and a two-week season of impurity after the birth of a female child (Lev. 12:1-5), in comparison to just one week for a male child. We see women being treated as trophies of war (Josh. 15:16; I Sam. 18:12-27). However, the Old Testament also protected women from more abusive forms of patriarchy imposed by other ancient Near Eastern cultures. For example, Israeli women could inherit land (Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-13; Job 42:15) and received fairer treatment in cases of suspected adultery (Num. 5:11-31), rather than a presumption of guilt (which was more common elsewhere).
In the New Testament, even greater dignity is afforded to women. Husbands are commanded to love their wives in a Christ-like fashion (Eph. 5:25-28), monogamy is held in high regard (Tit. 1:6), and sexual mutuality is established (I Cor. 7:3-5). However, women are called weaker vessels (I Pet. 3:7), told to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22-24), and forbidden pastoral roles (I Tim. 2:11-15). So while patriarchy is ameliorated, Webb argues, it is not yet removed. While Paul pushed beyond the ethic of his day, he did not disclose the “ultimate ethic”—namely: positional (functional) equality of men and women, such that all submission in marriage is completely mutual (meaning, for Webb, the same in both directions), with “deference in decision making based on expertise in a particular area rather than on gender” and (consequently) no gender-based leadership restrictions in the home and in the church.
Summary observations
It is noteworthy that Webb claims the New Testament itself, rightly understood, endorses the institution of slavery (just as it endorses the subordination of women in marriage and in the church). He thus differs from many other egalitarian scholars, who argue that finding subordination in passages such as Eph. 5:22-31 and I Tim. 2:11-15 represents a misinterpretation of the texts. For Webb, the Bible goes beyond the culture of its day, but not too far, as that would have threatened social cohesion. Rather than seeking to establish a utopian society with complete justice and equity, the Scriptures were “written within a cultural framework with limited, incremental moves toward an ultimate ethic.” What remains is for contemporary cultures like ours to heed the “redemptive spirit” in the biblical texts and to follow the “trajectory” to its logical (ultimate) conclusion—namely, beyond the New Testament, to the abolition of slavery and full egalitarianism.
Webb admonishes Bible readers to move from cultural forms to transcultural principles by examining the pragmatic factors in the original setting (ancient Near Eastern culture for Old Testament texts and Greco-Roman culture for New Testament texts) in comparison to our own cultural setting. Why might commands for wives to “submit to” their husbands have made sense in biblical times? Webb offers five culturally-specific reasons: differences in spouses’ ages (females being significantly younger), men having more formal education, differences in opportunities to acquire and hold resources, lack of informational sources within the home, and women’s lack of social exposure. Today, we’re to move from the cultural form (women “submit to” your husbands, and refrain from pastoral leadership in churches) to the transcultural principle (recognizing that equal dignity between men and women is inconsistent with any gender-based restrictions in the home or church). For example, passages like I Pet. 3:1-6 show that wifely submission and obedience were for the purpose of evangelism. But, in our day, such unilateral, patriarchal submission may have a more repelling effect, so Christian women should move beyond this specific injunction in their comportment with unbelieving spouses.