Well – we know there is a redemptive hermeneutic in terms of slavery. There also is for the treatment of women. This is a reasonable way to read the Bible as long as we realize that the NT was the ultimate and final word and Paul was inspired to offer timeless command in every word he wrote. Women must realize that they are, in the nature of their very being to be submissive to men, to never teach theology to males, and to win people over by subservience.
I know – sarcasm isn’t well suited to the blog world, and the above is a sarcastic parody. Nonetheless it seems to describe what I hear from some people.
This really brings up a serious question about going beyond the Bible in our culture. How do we have certainty that we are moving in the right direction?

Wow. No one (almost, RJS beat me by a couple minutes) is touching this one. I’ll give it a try (and I’m certainly no expert on the OT practice of taking prisoners as part of the spoils of battle). Assuming that it was common practice to take women prisoners as wives, there are a couple of ways you can do this: 1) Don?t allow them to grieve for a month before having sexual relations with them, and selling them afterwards if you?re not pleased. Or 2) The ?kinder, gentler? approach of allowing them a month to grieve and not selling them, which if you did would add insult to injury?. Movement toward an ethic.
That is a good disgusting text to apply this principle to.

In the current evangelical conversation I have it humorous (and somewhat sad) that there is more biblical justification for the *continuing* of slavery as a *God-ordained* institution than there is biblical justification for the prohibition of women from equality with men in Christian ministry in all aspects. Yet, no evangelical of note advocates slavery, but many fiercely oppose women as elders and pastors and leaders. Apparently, the redemptive hermeneutic is acknowledged for freeing slaves, but not for freeing women. Is applying a hermeneutical principle *selectively* a valid evangelical methodology?

One of the things that I’ve said to people, is to look at God’s nature and see if what they’re thinking is consistent with His nature. I think that’s one way to know if we’re moving in the right direction correctly. So, if God is love and a God of justice, mercy, etc., are the decisions that we make, consistent with what we know Him to be. We have to remember that God is above scripture. Yes, it is His inspired word, but it is not Him. Ultimately, I want to know and do that which would be pleasing and glorifying to Him and not just faithful to a book. Where we try to remain faithful to chapter and verse may be where we get into more of wooden interpretations, particularly if we are not allowing God Himself to interpret His word to us.
As for the matter of slavery, I would say that God was not for slavery but rather offered instruction for those living within that system. We know that God had the power to abolish it at anytime in history if He so chose to do so. Just as there are many things within our current culture that should be abolished and yet God allows them to exist. At His appointed tim, men and women were raised up who were a crucial part of abolishing this system and helping slaves to freedom. I believe God chooses to work through frail humanity and while there are things that I’d like to see abolished, it won’t happen until we begin to work with God for justice.
And RJS, I’m glad you clarified your statement. I read the first parargraph and was like, “Is she for real?”

William Webb is hands down the clearest writer I’ve read on this, along with your book, Scot, The Blue Parakeet. I am quite convinced of it, and I think one key is to understand what the kingdom of God come in Jesus brings to the table on this for us in Jesus here and now. That we’re to by faith seek to live out the fullness of the kingdom because something of that fullness is present in the world now in Jesus by the Spirit. Of course the question remains just what that means in specifics, as to gender, etc. But you and Webb leave me personally with no doubt whatsoever of the overriding principle. One just doesn’t know precisely how this is worked out in details.
Scripture though is meant to be interactive and engaging. I like the analogy McLaren brings out in a recent book, The Secret Message of Jesus, which I listened to, that following Jesus means working out life while not knowing, instead of knowing it all and working that out. I think there’s a dynamic at work in that which makes us depent not just on a text, but within a living relationship together with God through Jesus.

RJS,
Perhaps ?certainty? should not be our objective. Humility, which God seems to value so highly, tends to be an important counterbalance. I suspect that tension between different possibilities may be a healthy state of affairs.

…let me add to that that I agree with you and Webb as to the gender matter. I think that is clear through understanding this dynamic within Scripture.

No conclusion here, just some thoughts. It might be helpful to distinguish between kidnapping and slavery. Words and meanings are really important in this discussion because it is so loaded. Please read my terms in the most gracious, kingdom-minded perspective…
“Kidnapping” in seriously condemned in the OT (“men-stealing”) – if I remember correctly, it was a capital offense. That’s what happened to a lot of people who were then forced into slavery in this country. It was, is, and will be totally evil.
Some kinds of slavery in scripture seem more an economic arrangement (especially due to bankruptcy) that provide a means of restoration after a period of time (for example, 7 years). In the NT, people who had “slaves” were instructed to treat them well. At times I wonder if the accountability of the “owner” isn’t better than the “at will” nature of employment in the US today; hardly anyone is secure in their employment status, and I see many of my friends forced to work longer and longer hours for less money in fear of losing their miserable jobs. Isn’t that a kind of slavery?
Paul didn’t have a problem being a slave of Christ. Maybe we like the term “servant” better than “slave” because of the negative connotations – that’s kind of understandable. But Paul was happy to lose his personal freedom for the sake of the king and kingdom.

The question in “going beyond” a text like 1 Tim 2:12 is tricky. On one hand, there are several exegetical models to explain this text in a way that does not marginalize women from teaching men, and for some, it does not negate being an elder. But, if Paul’s statement means, like Robert Saucy puts it, a women cannot perform authoritative teaching (i.e. be an elder), then egalitarians have hit a wall. Webb goes around the wall by asserting on the one hand that Paul is frozen in time and therefore reflects his own “gender-based hierarchy” (SW&H 160) and on the other that we can argue to a “better ethic” by seeing the “redemptive movement” in other statements by Paul about women. So on the one hand 1 Tim 2:12 does restrict a women’s role but on the other, if Paul were alive today, he would state the teaching differently. Thus Webb goes “beyond” the text to an ultimate ethic by using other positive statements as a “trajectory” to a “better ethic” (better, of course, by our own cultural understandings).
This surfaces one of the issues that most bothers biblical scholars … how does this kind of “going beyond” square with an evangelical view of Scripture (and that may not be as monolithic as it once was).
The Four Views book endeavors to put some of these kinds of issues on the table in order to forward the debate.

Easy way to get around the ‘do not covet your neighbors’s wife’ law. Make war on your neighbor, once he’s dead, marry his wife. They call it a Loophole. David should have been acquitted in the case of Nathan v. David.

Gary (#8),
I am grateful that you have put before us the various strategies in dealing with the text…and beyond. Your thoughts and Saucy’s on 1 Tim 2:12 (in context) do seem like a wall to egalitarians only if Paul is, in fact, giving a “timeless truth” or “principle.” But if Paul is indeed forbidding women to teach men in Ephesus due to an over-realized eschatology within a Diana-of-the-Ephesians background, that is, in a situation creating havoc in *that” grouping of believers, we can take Paul’s words as an *ad hoc* directive. I know that the push back on this is Paul’s appeal to the creation order, but we know that engages us in a whole nest of exegetical/theological problems as well.
Again, thank you for bringing these significant issues out for all us–scholars and pastors–to work through.

Oops, I meant Gary (#9), not (#8).

I appreciated John’s perceptive comments because no matter what “method” we adopt it’s just that–a method. It’s not absolute truth. Somehow all the methods outlined in this book seem to be about reading the Bible as proof text–we’re trying to squeeze out timeless truths and principles for living where Jesus isn’t even necessary. All the methods Scott has outlined can offer productive strategies for reading the Bible but it would be a mistake to absolutize any method.

Seems that Webb could strenghten his argument with more of a redemptive historical/canonical approach (as several responders in the book suggested). In other words, the redemptive movement hermeneutic comes across a little theologically simplistic even as it attempts a more sophisticated engagement with how biblical ethics compare to ethics of the surrounding cultures during Bible times.
For instance, instead of leaving the ultimate ethic somewhat undefined and influenced by our contemporary preferences, it seems that Webb could look to develop the eschatological ethic present in Jesus’ kingdom teachings or in Paul’s new creation framework.
In the tension between already experiencing kindgom and new creation reality but still living in a fallen world a stronger theological warrant could be established for the incremental steps Webb describes.
An additional comment – I would caution against trying to make biblical passages appear ridiculous in order to make a broader point in support of one’s move from the Bible to theology.

Question: Does this discussion – and that taken up in the book which has prompted it – raise any concerns about the Reformer’s doctrine about the perspicuity of Scripture for any of you?
If not, what in your theological tradition keeps this discussion from eroding this central reformation maxim for you?
If it does erode your confidence in this aspect of the Reformers’ teaching regarding Scripture, what biblical-theological supports have you set in place to slow the destructive force of the realities that give rise to these discussions?

John … I agree that biblical studies in the last several decades have offered us lots of options for understanding 1 Tim 2:12 within its own epistolary context rather than forcing it into a universal category (2:13-15, however, is harder!!).
Mich … The Four Views project actually begins where “proof texts” leave off. Prof Kaiser’s principlizing view would be the closest to claiming a text can be put forth … the other views however are trying to find a paradigm that will help us to address issues (1) for which there is no direct-teaching context; (2) for which the data seems to be locked within biblical-times culture; (3) and to identify lines of argument that help us to go “beyond” the direct statements of texts to sound biblical worldview assertions (e.g. issues from slavery to euthanasia).
I think the importance of such a project is to see ways in which Scripture is relevant for the modern world.

Greg, I think what you say about redemptive historical with a view to historical context is just what Webb is arguing. He’s got a redemptive-historical approach plus a more serious interaction with how the texts speak into ancient contexts. The classical redemptive-historical approach tends to argue for a progressive revelation from creation to Christ (though some add Pauline theology as part of salvation history).
I agree; it is easy to make texts seem simplistic, but it is important to put tough texts onto the table in order to see the issues at stake. The war bride text cited today is one tough text.

Vaughn, ever the zealot Catholic pushing the Protestant button! But, you have to admit, the same problem presents itself to the Catholic but is resolved in the magisterium or at least in councils. The redemptive movement of Webb will work that out more at the individual/ecclesial level, but without a magisterium.
Right?