“Slaves, Women & Homosexuals” |

“Slaves, Women & Homosexuals” is the title of a book by William J. Webb, “theologian, ordained Baptist minister and former professor of New Testament at Heritage Seminary, Ontario.” Though first published 23 years ago, it is more recently being promoted by Koorong Books.

Despite the threefold title, it is apparent that the book’s focus is upon the role of women in the church and in marriage. Webb himself states: “For the sake of simplicity, then, the subdivisions within the book have been organized around the women’s issue.”[1] His chief concern comes across to justify women teaching and exercising authority in the church, and against wives submitting to their husbands in marriage.
To this end he rather uncharitably, but repeatedly, employs the pejorative term “patriarchy” (lit. “father-rule”) to describe those husbands who, though treating their wives as equal before God (1 Pet 3:7), not as “children”, genuinely believe the Bible teaches men and women have different, but complementary, roles in marriage (as per Eph 5:22-33) and in the church.

To Scripture and Beyond

But by introducing two other issues: slavery and homosexuality, he gives the appearance of “balance” – a word he frequently uses to endorse his position on the women-in-ministry issue. He claims to be “deeply committed” to “Scripture [as it] provides the authoritative basis for Christian life and faith”[2], but through what he calls a “Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic” he maintains that the Bible does not have the last word on some issues and must be brought up to date.

Another term used is: “Trajectory Hermeneutic”. Webb comments: “I have coined my approach a ‘redemptive-movement’ hermeneutic because it captures the redemptive spirit within Scripture… Some may prefer calling this interpretive/ applicational approach a “progressive” or “developmental” or “trajectory” hermeneutic. That is fine.”[3] Webb himself often refers to the need to pursue a “trajectory” beyond Scripture.

Webb lays the groundwork for a trajectory hermeneutic by challenging us to think through 39 commands from Scripture and asks us: “Which of these instructions from Scripture are still in force for us today exactly as they are articulated on the page?”.[4] But most of these that are not still in force, as well as other examples he uses, are easily resolved, either as individual commands given to a specific individual, or by distinguishing what is descriptive (eg. “monarchy”, “polygamy”, “right-handedness” etc.) from what is prescriptive, or by understanding the limited application of Old Testament Ceremonial and Civil Law in the New Testament.

That there is a trajectory from the Old Testament to the New is accepted by any serious student of the Bible. In a recent blog I myself refer to this in how we are to interpret the “laws” of the Old Testament by distinguishing between the Moral Law, Ceremonial Laws and Civil Laws of the Old Testament and thinking through how they are differently applied in the New Testament.

The Sufficiency of Scripture

But the trajectory stops in the New Testament (Heb 1:1-2, Jude 3). We believe in the Sufficiency of Scripture, i.e. that the Bible, “given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness [i.e. ethics]”; and that what we now have is sufficient for “the man of God to be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16).

But Webb wants to argue that, while the Scripture ethic is complete when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, its ethic when it comes to slavery is an example of where we must follow through, not just to where Scripture landed, but where it was heading in the future. We agree that the Old Testament laws around slavery were incomplete, even though (as Webb himself allows) they were remarkably humane for their day.[5] But he is wrong when he tries to make out that the final ethic of the New Testament endorses the institution of slavery; it does not (eg. see 1 Cor 7:21-23, Philemon 15-16). The New Testament gives advice on how one is to conduct oneself if he finds himself in any one of a number of unfortunate circumstances (eg. Heb 10:34), including slavery. But that is not the same as endorsing those unfortunate circumstances.

Yet Webb insists on using the slavery issue (balanced, he believes, by his different take on the homosexuality issue) to “prove” that sometimes we have to follow a trajectory beyond what Scripture teaches to arrive at a conclusion that may run contrary to the clear and final teaching of the Bible at that point.

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority”

His book is over 300 pages long, so I won’t try and cover it all in this one short (?) blog. Let me just focus (as Webb does) on the women-in-ministry issue, and in particular his rejection of the clear teaching of 1 Tim 2:12-13:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in quietness [Gk hesuchia, cf hesuchios “peaceable, quiet, tranquil” in v 2]. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”

Webb himself acknowledges “the weakest link in my argument [is] my assessment of 1 Timothy 2:13”[6] and he devotes a whole chapter to this at the end of his book titled, “What if I am wrong?”[7] – though the chapter itself reads more like: “I am not wrong; I am right”.

Webb accepts that 1 Tim 2:12-13 does in fact teach exactly what it says, but then seeks to get round it by suggesting the trajectory of Gal 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”) leads to the opposite conclusion.[8] He quite ignores the fact that what Paul wrote to the Galatians early in his missionary travels (~ 49 AD) can hardly be construed as a more mature development in Paul’s theology than what he wrote to Timothy (~ 65 AD) towards the end. If there were a trajectory here it is all the wrong way: but there is no such trajectory. Rightly understood there is no tension between 1 Tim 2:12-13 and Gal 3:28; both are true.

A Corrective

Before going further let me affirm what Biblical complementarity (in the following comments, in a church context) actually teaches in order to head off the caricatures employed by some egalitarians to discredit it.

1) All women are not called to submit to all men in the church, only to those called to teach and exercise authority. All men are also to submit to those called to teach and exercise authority.

2) Not all men are to teach and exercise authority in the church, only those called by Christ as pastor-teachers. (Eph 4:11)

3) Those who exercise authority are to do so in a Biblical way, as themselves under the authority of Christ and answerable to Him. (1 Pet 5:1-4) The exercise of authority is NEVER an excuse to abuse, oppress or disrespect those under authority. See further here.

4) Submission to authority is Biblical, though no adult should ever be required to submit without question to another adult in authority. (Acts 4:19, 5:29) See further here.

5) Submission in this context is to God-ordained leaders and teachers in the church in their leadership role. It is not talking about informal occasions where eg. a husband and wife together might be sharing their Biblical insights with another, male or female. (Acts 18:24-26)

1 Timothy 2:12-13

What does this passage teach?
The comment below, from the ESV Study Bible, sums it up well:

2:12 I do not permit. Paul self-consciously writes with the authority of an apostle (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:6), rather than simply offering an opinion. This statement is given in the context of Paul’s apostolic instructions to the church for the ordering of church practice when the church is assembled together. In that context, two things are prohibited:
(1) Women are not permitted to publicly teach Scripture and/or Christian doctrine to men in church (the context implies these topics), and
(2) women are not permitted to exercise authority over men in church. (The reference for both “teaching” and “exercise authority” here is within the context of the assembled church.)
Women teaching other women, and women teaching children, are not in view here, and both are encouraged elsewhere (on women teaching women, cf. Titus 2:4; on women teaching children, cf. 2 Tim. 1:5). Nor does this passage have in view the role of women in leadership situations outside the church (e.g., business or government).
The presence of the word or (Gk. oude) between “to teach” and “to exercise authority” indicates that two different activities are in view, not a single activity of “authoritative teaching.”
“Exercise authority” represents Greek authenteō, found only here in the NT. Over 80 examples of this word exist outside the NT, however, clearly establishing that the meaning is “exercise authority” (not “usurp authority” or “abuse authority,” etc., as sometimes has been argued). Since the role of pastor/elder/overseer is rooted in the task of teaching and exercising authority over the church, this verse would also exclude women from serving in this office (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2).
Thus when Paul calls for the women to be quiet, he means “quiet” with respect to the teaching responsibility that is limited in the assembled church. Paul elsewhere indicates that women do speak in other ways in the church assembly (see 1 Cor. 11:5). See also note on 1 Cor. 14:34–35.

2:13 For introduces the biblical basis for the prohibition of v. 12. Paul indicates that the prohibition is based on two grounds, the first being the order of creation (Adam was formed first), and the second being the deception of Eve (v. 14).
“Formed” (Gk. plassō) is the same term that the Septuagint uses in Gen. 2:7, 8, which evidently refers to creation (cf. 1 Cor. 11:8–9). Paul’s argument indicates that gender roles in the church are not simply the result of the fall but are rooted in creation and therefore apply to all cultures at all times.
The meaning of this passage, however, is widely contested today. Some interpreters argue that the prohibition of 1 Tim. 2:12 does not apply today because:
. (1) the reason for Paul’s command was that women were teaching false doctrine in Ephesus; or
. (2) Paul said this because women in that culture were not educated enough to teach; or
– (3) this was a temporary command for that culture only.
But Paul’s appeal to the creation of Adam and Eve argues against those explanations. In addition, the only false teachers named in connection with Ephesus are men (1:19–20; 2 Tim. 2:17–18; cf. Acts 20:30), and no historical evidence exists of women teaching false doctrine in first-century Ephesus. Moreover, ancient inscriptions and literature speak of a number of well-educated women in that area of Asia Minor at that time (cf. also Luke 8:1–3; 10:38–41; John 11:21–27; Acts 18:2–3, 11, 18–19, 26; 2 Tim. 4:19).
Finally, some have claimed that this passage only prohibits a “wife” from teaching or exercising authority over her “husband,” since the Greek words gynē and anēr (translated “woman” and “man” in 1 Tim. 2:12) can also mean “wife” and “husband” in certain contexts. Given the immediate context of vv. 8–9, however, the most likely meaning of the Greek words gynē and anēr here in vv. 11–14 would seem to be “woman” and “man” (rather than “wife” and “husband”).

Gender Roles Rooted in Creation

“Gender roles in the church are not simply the result of the fall but are rooted in creation and therefore apply to all cultures at all times.”

Webb’s arguments against this border on silly as he sets up one straw man after another and then knocks them down. For example:

1) Webb argues that Adam’s prior creation forms the basis for primogeniture in later inheritance laws which we no longer apply universally, so why assign priority to male leadership in the church?[9] But neither in 1 Tim 2 nor anywhere else does Paul argue from creation for primogeniture in inheritance. If he did, we would be bound by that too; but he doesn’t.

2) Webb argues that the original creation counted honourable such things as marriage, gardening, walking as the only mode of transport, eating only plants etc. But we don’t require such for all Christians today; so why argue from creation to insist on the priority assigned to male leadership in the church?[10] Well again, because Paul, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, argues that way and proves the priority assigned to male leadership in the church from the creation order. But nowhere, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, does he argue from creation for marriage (though honourable) as the only allowable option against singleness; or gardening, or walking, or eating plants as our only options. Again, if he had, we would be bound by that; but he doesn’t.

3) Webb argues that language used in the Bible to describe heaven at the end of time (eschatology) is highly symbolic, using concepts that we understand now to depict what “eye has not seen, nor ear heard” (1 Cor 2:9). So, he suggests, maybe the language used to describe creation at the beginning of time (protology) is similarly symbolic and uses the language of later developments of “primogeniture” and “patriarchy” to help those who came afterward to understand.[11]
This is wrong on so many levels. One is at a loss to imagine why concepts such as “primogeniture” and “patriarchy” would in any way help us understand what went on back then if they weren’t relevant to the creation account. Or, why what occurred at the beginning of time in the real world, our present world (not some unknown, future world), would need to employ allegorical symbols to describe what really happened. Worse, Webb’s suggestion casts doubt on the literal historicity of the early chapters of Genesis.

Tragic Trajectories

There is a trajectory from the Old Testament to the New. But there the trajectory stops. We don’t need to go beyond the Bible. As Wayne Grudem warns: “Prior to Webb, only Roman Catholics and liberal Protestants, not evangelicals, have taken developments beyond the New Testament as part or all of their ultimate authority.”[12]

His use of the slavery issue to argue for the need to go beyond Scripture does not hold up because, whatever allowances were made for a limited form of slavery in the Old Testament, the ultimate Biblical ethic in the New Testament does not endorse slavery. To use this issue as a launching pad to reject and go beyond the Bible’s ethic for the role of men and women in the church can only lead ultimately to a departure from Biblical authority in other areas.

Mark Dever observes: “It seems to me and others (many who are younger than myself) that this issue of egalitarianism and complementarianism is increasingly acting as the watershed distinguishing those who will accommodate Scripture to culture, and those who will attempt to shape culture by Scripture… There may be no way the authority of Scripture is being undermined more quickly or more thoroughly in our day than through the hermeneutics of egalitarian readings of the Bible.”[13]

In a similar vein, Ligon Duncan notes: “The denial of complementarianism undermines the church’s practical embrace of the authority of Scripture (thus eventually and inevitably harming the church’s witness to the Gospel). The gymnastics required to get from ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,’ in the Bible, to ‘I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise authority over a man’ in the actual practice of the local church, are devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of the people of God.” He adds further: “Inerrancy or egalitarianism, one or the other, eventually wins out.”[14]

I sincerely hope this will not prove to be so in Webb’s case. I am thankful he teaches an ethic on homosexuality that does not go beyond the Bible but argues conclusively for it to stop with the Bible. Colin Smothers has noted: “We should acknowledge that many egalitarians don’t believe the Bible condones homosexuality.” But he sounds a warning: “While defending their position, many egalitarians employ the same hermeneutical method used to affirm same-sex relationships.”[15]

Sadly this is so. In 2015, 14 years after Webb’s book came out, Robert Gnuse, a university professor of religion in the U.S., published: “Trajectories of Justice: What the Bible Says about Slaves, Women, and Homosexuality” (also available from Koorong Books!). In this book he employs the same trajectory technique to twist the Bible’s teaching on, and write in support of, homosexuality.

The following year Caleb Day, a teacher of Christian ethics at Lindisfarne College of Theology in the U.K., applied a ‘trajectory hermeneutic’ to write in a similar vein: “A time to throw away? Rethinking the gender requirement for legitimate Christian sex.”

“Inerrancy or egalitarianism, one or the other, eventually wins out.”