Women, Slaves, and the Gender Debate: A Complementarian Response to the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic

by Benjamin Reaoch

The debate over the role of women in the church is not diminishing. Complementarians argue that men and women are equal but have distinctive roles, while egalitarians argue against role distinctions.

The egalitarians' redemptive-movement hermeneutic has gained support. Advocates concede many of the exegetical conclusions made by complementarians about relevant Bible passages, but then argue that elsewhere the Bible moves us beyond these specific instructions--e.g., the Bible commands slaves to submit to their masters, and yet basic principles in the Bible point toward the abolition of slavery. Is the issue of women's roles the same?

This is a timely examination of the exegetical and hermeneutical questions, demonstrating the inconsistencies of adopting the egalitarians' hermeneutical approach--and the dangerous consequences.

Genres: Theology, Womens

224 pages, Paperback

First published July 30, 2012

Reviews

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christian theologian John Frame once said that “The discussion of the man-woman relationship has greatly intensified since the 1970s.” I think Frame is right. Much discussion has been ongoing and many books have been written on the topic. Different movements have also arise over the decades. One such movement focuses more on the hermeneutics of how we approach the Scriptures and how we interpret passages concerning the relationship of man and woman. It is called the redemptive-movement with William Webb being the notable leader of the group. While different people affiliated with this movement may differ in some of their conclusion nevertheless we can safely say that their hermeneutics lead them to the conclusion of egalitarianism. This is a book length critique of the movement from a Complementarian perspective.


The author Benjamin Reaoch has done the church a service in writing this book. The book was adapted from the author’s doctoral dissertation at Southern Seminary. His adviser was the New Testament scholar Dr. Thomas Schreiner. Schreiner wrote a foreword for the book. Although both Reaoch and Schreiner are Southern Baptists it was Presbyterian and Reformed (P&R) that published it. I’m glad they did because this was a wonderful response to the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic.

The book consists of six chapters. The first chapter describes the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic. Since this school of thought believes that the New Testament discussion of women’s role is the same as the issue of slavery proponents believe that given that there are trajectories in the New Testament that leads us to head towards the abolition of slavery the same could be said about abolishing patriarchy found in the Bible. Since the movement focuses on what Scripture says about slavery and women it makes sense that the second and third chapters of the book surveyed New Testament statements concerning slavery and women. Chapter four compares the data give in chapters two and three. Finally chapters five and six are two chapters on hermeneutical considerations.

I enjoyed how this book was laid out. I thought there were some sound theological method in how the book was organized. Reaoch first began with a fair description of the redemptive-movement hermeneutic and even with a discussion of the nineteenth-century slavery debate in the America. While the latter might be more of a historical theology’s interests nevertheless since some of the academic discussions also brought up the abolitionists certainly it is worthwhile to consider their approach towards the Bible in regards to the slavery debate. I also thought the author did a good job by looking first at what Scripture has to say concerning slavery and women, and letting that shape one’s hermeneutical considerations. Of course hermeneutics will shape how one interpret the Scripture but if we properly understand the complex interrelationships of hermeneutics and exegesis we must also realize that exegesis, that is, the retrieved content of Scripture should also shape our methodological and hermeneutical considerations. I thought Reaoch did a good job of doing that in the book. His handling of Scripture is done with care and it is a plus that he also handles those whom he disagree with fairly.

As an example of the author handling Scripture carefully I thought on page 120 Reaoch did a good job of pointing out that not every details of creation is exactly for everyone to do today, details such as vegetarianism, farming and walking as a means of ground transportation. He caveats that by writing that it is in the New Testament that highlight what details from the creation account are significant and remain normative for us today. It is in this light that Reaoch then goes to the New Testament where he also pointed out how the egalitarians are wrong to argue that 1 Timothy 2:13 is appealing to the cultural custom of primogeniture (first born honor and duty) since the passage is not appealing to that practice but instead it is appealing to the historical event of creation. In other words, the passage is not cultural but is meant to tell us what prescriptively remains in ethical force for us today from the creation account. I also thought Reaoch made a good observation that egalitarians often assume a creation versus redemption paradigm but Scripture teaches it is a sin versus redemption framework as being the point of the old self versus the new self in the New Testament. More importantly he looks at the ground basis appealed to for slavery and women’s role and he notes that the ground for both of them are different which refutes the idea that both are analogous.

There were many things that I found interesting throughout the book. Personally reading the segment on the nineteenth century slavery debate made me want to read up more on the historical setting and actual arguments given during that time. It was neat to see the book mentioned how 1 Timothy 1:10 which prohibits “man-stealing” along with 1 Corinthians 7:21 which teaches slaves to seek their freedom if the opportunity arises were the seeds for the abolitionism. I also had a great moment of personal devotional and communion with Christ when the author pointed out how in the New Testament individuals who often seen as the lowest in society have great potential to display the transforming power of the Christian faith in their act of submission with the examples of slaves (Titus 2:9-10), and wives (Titus 2:4-5, 1 Peter 3:5-6). It challenges our modern notion that the only meaningful influence is top-down; but God has it the other way around.

Overall a good book. I recommend it.

[Eustacia Tan · Rating 2 out of 5]

One of the things I read before sleeping (while randomly googling on my phone), would be about Christian Patriarchy and Complementarianism and Gender Equality. Basically, it all boils down to one question - is the guy superior to the girl? Patriarchy says "yes", Complementarians say "we are made for different roles" and Egalitarians (Gender Equality) say "we are equal." This book is supposed to address that.

Now, seeing as I was the girl who used to pick fights saying "Girls are better than boys" and (less controversially) "Girls can do anything boys can do", I naturally lean towards Egalitarianism. And depending on what Complementarianism is (I'm still not sure what it's about), I may or may not support it. And I shouldn't need to state my position against Patriarchy.

In Christianity, there are a few key verses that people have been debating over with regards to this subject. This book aims to deal with these verses and conclusively determine what the Bible says on this position. Because the whole "wife-submit-to-your-husband" verses are closely tied to the "slave-submit-to-your-master", the author tries to make the case that the slave verses are cultural-specific, but the wife-verses are a timeless principal.

First off, throughout the book, the author has never defined male headship. He mentions the whole leading thing, but he does not define the limits. If he does, it wasn't marked out clearly enough, and I missed it.

Secondly, this book is pro-complementarian and more-or-less against egalitarianism. I say this because the bias behind the book is very important. Speaking as someone who has attempted to write a thesis before, I can tell you that your position is going to influence how you interpret things and how receptive you are to facts that disagree with you. So while the author is really polite towards the theorists he disagrees with, you can see that he thinks their wrong.

Thirdly, and this is really a fault on my part, I couldn't understand the book. I have no knowledge of Hebrew or the Biblical languages, so even if you tell me that what this particle mean, I have no way of knowing if you're telling me the truth. In addition, I found the argument hard to follow. I think I understand the basic gist of what this book is saying (I know what the conclusion is though), but it's an understanding so tenuous that I can't put it down in words.

But really, with all the different opinions floating around claiming to be the true interpretation of God's Word, what's a girl to believe?

Strangely, I'm absolutely confident that the Bible is the inspired and true Word of God, but I'm very murky on the details. I find it easier to understand apologetics than theology. So to me, this book was harder to understand. Although strangely, from what I understood, I ended up agreeing with the arguments of the ones he tries to discredit rather than his arguments.

In my opinion, I would disagree with the author, but not on the basis of his arguments. My reasons for disagreeing with the concept of male headship is that I believe that God gives people different gifts, and that he does give some women the gift of leadership. Just look in Judges, where Deborah lead the people of Israel. I believe that people who say that women should not have authority over men are denying women who are gifted by God with the gift of leadership.

Personally, I found this book hard to read and understand. But it may be that I'm simply not familiar with this topic, and hence, find it difficult to grasp. I would recommend this to people interested in the patriarchy debate, who are fairly knowledgeable about the topic and can follow along academic arguments.

Disclaimer: I received a free copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for a free and honest review.

First posted at Inside the mind of a Bibliophile

[Sadie Forsythe]

This was Reaoch's PhD dissertation. So, I'll grant that he tries to be academic and 'fair.'

But the whole thing basically boils down to taking a book written by patriarchal men in a patriarchal society in support of a patriarchal religion that is later translated by different patriarchal men in differing patriarchal societies, then later still edited and altered by additional patriarchal men in yet another patriarchal society, to here deconstruct and examine interpretations of scriptures from the patriarchal book that has historically been written, translated, edited, and interpreted by patriarchal men from patriarchal societies in support of a patriarchal religion in order to find that...shocker, the scripture supports patriarchy.

The man set out to prove that the Bible still says women must submit to their husbands, and, lo and behold, that is what he found. If you are looking to a book written thousands of years ago to tell you if you have to treat your wife as a social equal, you are not looking to the book for that instruction. You are looking for it to tell you exactly what you have already decided and want to hear. Which is pretty much precisely the criticism that Reaoch lobbed at egalitarians.

[John Pawlik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really great book! This one is somewhat technical but much more accessible than Kostenberger’s book.
It addresses one argument, which is the argument that passages about women in the Bible should be treated the same way we have treated passages about slavery. Basically, the Paul never condemns the social institution of slavery but clearly sows the seeds for an environment where it would never be able to survive in the longrun. Many make the same argument with passage that may contain prohibitions against women serving in the office of elder or pastor, it uses to be applicable but the ethic of scripture has moved beyond it in our current time.

I think this is one of the most persuasive arguments of the egalitarian position and so I was excited to dig into material that focused on it in particular. Reaoch looks at all of the passages containing references to women and slaves and compares them to see if the argument holds up. The reason why it does is because Paul gives admonitions to individual slaves but pretty clearly in many places has a negative view of the institution of slavery. And in 1 Corinthians and Philemon he almost outright comes out against it. The same cannot be said for his injections about marriage and the office of elder. There, rather than point to a dying institution, he points either to the cross (as in Ephesians 5) or back to God’s intent in creation (1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11) to show that our created genders have a place both in creation and redemption.

What I think he could have gotten across better is there Paul is not totally without seed-like arguments when talking about women. When he says “I stand with our sister Phoebe” in Romans 16:1, and all of the other places where Junia or Percilla are held up so highly, you can see the pushback against the cultures view of women. And the various places we see them sway and influence you can see that women held far more power in the early church than they did in the surrounding Roman world. Overall a really helpfully argued book!

[Becky Pliego · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough and clear.

[Ben K · Rating 4 out of 5]

Years ago I read William Webb’s book "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals.” I was intrigued by his redemptive movement hermeneutic. In a nutshell, he suggested that the Bible moves in a more liberating direction in some of its instructions, such that in application we can move beyond the Bible to an even better “ultimate” ethic. For instance, even though the Bible does not explicitly condemn slavery, we can reject the institution of slavery if we follow the Bible’s ethical trajectory to its natural end. Webb argued that the issue of women is parallel to that of slavery. If we follow the redemptive trajectory in Scripture, we will arrive at an ultimate ethic that is essentially egalitarian. While I thought Webb made some helpful points, it was not enough to draw me away from complementarianism.

In this book, Benjamin Reaoch presents a complementarian response to this hermeneutic as promoted by Webb and others. It is a brief but solid and clearly argued critique. Essentially, he argues that Webb is wrong in asserting that the issues of slaves and women in the Bible are parallel. They are similar in some ways, but its treatment of women is distinct in some crucial ways. For one, many commands to women in the New Testament appeal to creation, something that we do not see with regard to slaves. Reaoch engages with many of the other criteria Webb gives for determining whether a text is culturally bound: movement with respect to the culture, “seed ideas,” purpose clauses, theological analogies, primogeniture, general principles vs. specific instructions, and creation vs. redemption. He demonstrates that while we do see movement in the Bible, it is absolute and not preliminary movement. We do not need an ethic above and beyond what the Bible gives us within its pages.

Reaoch has done an admirable job critiquing the redemptive movement hermeneutic. It is well-researched (as would be expected, being that this was the topic of his PhD dissertation), and presented in a gracious yet honest manner.

[Jeremy Tetreau · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detailed, thorough, respectful, and kind. Highly recommend reading this alongside Webb.

(As a side note, Reaoch's complementarianism does not explicitly argue for EFS, though he apparently assumes it on p.94 by using the phrase "authority structure within the Godhead" (referring to 1 Corinthians 11:3, despite previously stressing Paul's literary and theological dependence on Genesis 2). Interestingly, though, nothing about his argument in the rest of his book depends on EFS per se (he alludes to "God's relationship to his Son" and "significant aspects of God's nature" on p.157, but this is otherwise unaddressed in the book).

[Mathew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gender issues are the hot topic of our day especially with the Church of England’s decision to prevent women from holding office as bishops. Reaoch approaches this topic exegetically--interacting heavily with William Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. Webb is a proponent of the redemptive-movement hermeneutic. This hermeneutic finds seed ideas in Scripture whose ultimate fulfillment lands outside of Scriptural prescription. So they might argue that although Paul may have restricted women pastors, he also put in place principles that would undermine that same principle at a later date. More on this later.

Reaoch has done a wonderful job at carefully exegeting the principles passages and fairly representing his opponents For instance he wasn’t afraid to express agreement with Webb and others (pp. 87, 106, 127, 151) when their exegetical points were strong. One of Reaoch’s major contentions is that the passages describing the slave-master relationship and those that describe the husband-wife relationship aren’t totally parallel. Yes they part of a household code but typically there are different ground statements and different impetus for obedience for each. He also spends a lot of time describing the creation narrative and apply what I would call a common sense hermeneutic. Many times people fail to read and understand Scripture with a little common sense. For instance, Reaoch in his discussion on the creation narrative points out Webb complicates passages to strengthen his point. Occam’s razor should be applied to our hermeneutics.

Back to the redemptive-movement hermeneutic to close. Reaoch points out:
This reveals a fundamental problem for any redemptive-movement hermeneutic or developmental hermeneutic, for we must not assume that God’s Word contains tension we must resolve. The grave danger in such an assumption is the elevation of our contemporary subjective ideals above the authoritative instruction of the Bible (p. 138)
The R-M hermeneutic undermines Sola Scriptura (p. 116). You cannot have Scripture as a final authority for life and doctrine but also have our current cultural preferences (p. 111) directing the interpretation of Scripture. In the final chapter, Reaoch also interact with those egalitarians in the R-M camp who urge Christians to read the passages like Galatians 3:28 and put aside those that seem to restrict women’s roles until the end of the debate. Reaoch rightly points out the folly of this recommendation. You could practically make a case for anything in Scripture by urging your opponent to turn a blind eye to passages of Scripture which don’t support your thesis. Dangerous indeed and a warning for all. Reaoch’s balance and winsome interaction on this topic is needed. If you want an exegetical foundational on the issues of women, slavery, and homosexuality Women, Slaves, and the Gender Debate is your book.