Women in Ministry and the Home - II

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.