The CBE Scroll

Comment by Ian

June 18, 2009 @ 11:40 am

Many thanks for this article. I’ve also ordered the book.

Comment by Mike Aubrey

June 18, 2009 @ 12:18 pm

That’s the best thing I’ve read all week. I read Duncan’s article/review about a year ago paragraph by paragraph with your own chapter. I concluded that Duncan’s article was complete nonsense. Thank you, Dr. Hess.

(by the way, Discovering Biblical Equality is also edited by Ronald Pierce)

Comment by jlp

June 18, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

I have a dumb question: what’s the difference between a Theologian and a Biblical Scholar? I ask this because the article states that Duncan is a theologian rather than a biblical scholar, and I never knew there a difference.

Comment by Larhanya

June 18, 2009 @ 1:03 pm

@JLP: It’s not a dumb question…at first blush, there should be no distinction. But inside the gates of the seminary/university, there is a perceived difference. Biblical scholars take as their primary study the Scriptures themselves, gaining expertise, as Dr. Hess does, in one or more Biblical languages, and using that knowledge to exegete Scripture. Theologians, on the other hand, may choose to draw not only from Scripture, but also from tradition, culture, extra-Biblical writings (such as those of the Fathers) and philosophy, etc. As Dr. Hess demonstrates in his article, Biblical scholars are by no means constrained from using these sources, but their primary focus is the Scriptures. Much to their shame, some theologians choose not to start with the Scriptures at all, or choose to do so only sloppily, which is what I understand Dr. Hess to be suggesting Mr. Duncan is doing. Hence the accusation that brother Duncan is a theologian not a Biblical scholar. Does that make sense? Maybe someone else could be clearer.

FWIW, I think that brother Duncan practices sloppy theology by not doing his homework on the exegetical issues. Nevermind that — he does sloppy scholarship by not engaging the chapter he was critiquing on its own ground.

Comment by Charis

June 18, 2009 @ 1:15 pm

It was difficult to follow without looking at the context: namely Hess’s chapter 4 of “Discovering Biblical Equality” and then Duncan’s response. JFYI Hess’s chapter 4 is available on google books here, and a correct link to Duncan’s critique (at CBMW) is available here

Comment by jlp

June 18, 2009 @ 3:11 pm

Larhanya,

Thanks for your answer! You explained it so clearly that I could easily follow what you said.

Charis,

I’ve missed you! Where have you been? I always love your comments.

Comment by Mary

June 18, 2009 @ 3:44 pm

Originally published in Priscilla
Papers, Royce Gordon Gruenler’s free review of the book, Discovering Biblical
Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, is

available online.

Comment by Liz

June 18, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

Mike, thanks for pointing out the omission of Ronald Pierce from the list of editors. Just bears out how one can read something a few times and miss the obvious. It is sorted now.

Charis & Mary, thanks for the extra links which are so valuable and give more of the picture.

Hope many more read these articles and gain much from Richard’s excellent reasoning and faithfulness to scripture.

Comment by Amanda

June 18, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

To expand on Larhanya’s explanation, biblical scholars seek to exegete the Scriptures themselves, whereas theologians seek to understand the Bible as a unified whole (this would include comparing Scripture with Scripture, as well as seeing what others have had to say over the past 2,000 years of church history). Think of the difference between reading a commentary as opposed to reading a systematic theology. Both, in my opinion, are necessary and an over-emphasis on one is potentially dangerous to one’s understanding of Scripture. Hope that helps.

Comment by Trevor

June 18, 2009 @ 9:28 pm

Thank you to all who have contributed so far and also to Charis who provided another helpful link. What struck me as I read all of this material is that egalitarians are often accused of not providing any worthwhile or persuasive arguments that deserve consideration by hierarchists. This is a case in point.

A thoroughly researched chapter from a highly credentialed and respected biblical scholar is dismissed out of hand simply because it doesn’t line up with the preconceptions and theological persuasion of the person doing the critiquing. As has already been well said, so often the arguments being offered by egalitarians aren’t examined on their own merit. It is just assumed that they cannot be right, or worthy of reflection. Why? Because they aren’t considered to be either true to scripture, or almost 2000 years of church tradition.

What we tend to either forget or ignore is that a ‘reformation’ and rediscovery of the foundational biblical truth of ‘justification by faith’ was necessary because it was lost to the church for centuries during the darkness and confusion of the middle ages. Not so long ago people like John Wycliffe (who are heroes of the faith today) were burned at the stake for attempting to make the Bible available to the common people in a language they could understand. His greatest antagonists were the religious leaders of the day. Tradition, erroneously applied, failed miserably.

Isn’t it just possible that we are arguing for a similar and necessary reformation of church and home life with our propagation of biblical equality demonstrated in mutual submission? Contrary to the opinions of those who believe otherwise it is my belief that the depth of egalitarian scholarship, as well as the integrity and humility of its staunchest advocates speaks for itself. Richard Hess is just one such example and I for one am pleased that he has gone to the trouble of responding in this gracious way to his critics.

Comment by Jamie

June 22, 2009 @ 12:11 pm

Thanks for posting the article. ; )

One thing that struck me in particular is the topic of naming on pgs. 7-10 of the article. Mr. Hess is absolutely correct about naming and authority. Not ALL naming means exerting authority, it could be just recognition.

And also the Old Testament context is important (actually, all Scripture should be read within its particular context — it’s just not good exegesis to me to do otherwise and is an open gateway to the pick-and-choose method that can lead to a very inaccurate interpretation).

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that all naming in the Bible (or at least in the creation narrative here) means to exert authority . . .

When ha-adam (‘adam, ‘the man’) names the animals, it’s not the same way he describes the woman, for instance. It’s only when the verb call is joined with the noun name (sem) is the calling of the name seen as exerting authority. Calling by itself does not denote this by the particular naming formula present here.

In Gen. 2:19 and in Gen. 3:20 do we see the calling of the name formula, but not in Gen. 2:23. There it is only descriptive.

But if Gen. 3:20 is exerting authority, can it not also be usurping of authority by the man over the woman by his own initiative (not God’s)?

When we reach the end of the narrative, Adam is driven out of the Garden, not Eve, who has been diminished so much post-Fall by Adam she is no longer worth mentioning (Gen. 3:22-24).

Other examples of the calling of the name formula can be seen in Gen. 4:17, 25, 26a, 26b.

There is a clear difference between calling and naming.

Comment by Lin

June 25, 2009 @ 10:17 am

Mr. Hess makes a point that has concerned me for some time about the way comps interpret scripture. He shows that Mr. Duncan making the point that we must use 1 Tim 2 to rightly understand Gen 1-2.

I have heard this same argument from many complimentarians and find it bizarre.

That would mean that for thousands of years, folks could not rightly understand Gen 1 and 2 until Paul wrote that letter to Timothy.

Comment by Mara

June 25, 2009 @ 11:03 am

Yes, I’ve observed the same thing.

I listened to a preacher on a car radio some years back who was preaching on the Proverbs 31 woman.

And ya know…
He kept preaching through the Eph 5:22 lens.
He defined and significantly narrowed the Proverb 31 woman through Eph 5:22 instead of teaching it the other way around, using the Pr31 gal as the foundation or first mention for Ephesians 5:21&22. He kept emphasising the importance of submission over and over (and OVER) to the point that the Proverbs 31 woman’s domain was reduced to housework.

He disempowered and gutted PR31 until it was unrecognizable.

Very sad.

Comment by Don

June 25, 2009 @ 3:05 pm

That CBMW would publish such a shoddy paper shows a few things to me:

1. They simply cannot conceive that they MAY be wrong.

2. They write such articles to keep the already-convinced convinced. They cannot really be used to try to convince the searching or egals. But this strategy is only partially viable as long as non-egals are the majority.

Comment by JLP

June 26, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

I know the Bible is a religious book, but it is a history book also. I know of no history book that I have ever read in which anyone ever reinterpreted a historical event in light of something that came afterwards. It’s just not done. Since the Bible is a history book, I don’t think anything in it should be reinterpreted in light of something that happened later.

Comment by Wayne P.

June 26, 2009 @ 10:01 pm

Re: history interpreted in light of something that came later – I don’t think that this is, in & of itself, the problem. Later events often shed significant light on earlier events of history. For example, in Romans 5, Paul does this regarding Adam in the light of the coming of redemption in Christ.

The real issue here, I think, is anachronism. Tensions in gender relations created by today’s post-industrial context, the increasing opportunities for women that threaten those with more traditional perspectives, etc., are read back into 1 Tim. 2 (to support a view of the inferiority of women) and, through 1 Tim. 2, to Gen. 2-3.

In this case, this understanding of 1 Tim. 2 – separated from its historical & social context – is needed to support this anachronistic reading of Genesis.

Comment by Frank

June 29, 2009 @ 8:49 pm

As I have read the exchange between Dr. Hess and his CBMW critic, Prof. Duncan, I am again amazed at how hierarchicalists, who so often proclaim themselves guardians and champions of Scripture and of orthodox Christian theoloy, prove themselves to be just the opposite, and not be aware they have done so.

In order to maintain their prior commitment to male dominance, they violate basic principles of biblical interpretation, which in the case of other doctrinal and ethical issues, they expect everyone to practise. They conveniently avoid or alter the basic principle, on which most theologians agree, that any valid Christian theology must be founded on a solid biblical theology that truly exegetes, correlates, and harmonizes the revelation of both Old and New Testaments, which is progressive and culminative in nature, but never contradictory. And while they profess to be more logical than their egalitarian opponents, they are often guilty of blatant logical fallicies a second year philosophy student would quickly recognize as illogical and invalid.

But other than constantly confronting them with solid exegesis and solid rational arguements, and exposing their own errors, I am not sure what more we can do to help them see something they don’t want to see.

Comment by Frank

June 30, 2009 @ 11:57 am

As a follow-up to my previous Scroll comment (85902)I wish to remind us all of essential facts regarding biblical interpretation and the valid formulation of Christian theology, since truth always bears repeating.

The divergence between egalitarians and hierarchialists on male-female relationships in home, church and society is not based on our personal opinions as to how certain texts, such as 1 Tim. 2:11-15 and 1 Pet. 3:5-7, are to be understood and applied. Nor is it based on either of us possessing a low view of Scripture, nor by our denying the sola Scriptura principle of the Reformation. And those who say we do,well, they speak either out of ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

We both agree that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible written Word of God, the final rule by which all Christian doctrine and practice is to be measured. So we share a common, high view regarding the divine origin and nature of the Scriptures, and the role they are to play in developing a Christian system of theology and ethics that is both rational and practical.

Where we appear to disagree is what is truly involved in the regular and consistent practice of the sola Scriptura principle. Sola Scriptura, contrary to what some might think, does not mean that all the truth there is to discover and know can only be found in Scripture. There are many truths of mathematics, history, science, and medicine, for example, that are not found specifically in the Bible. But according to the sola Scriptura principle, all such truths, if indeed true, must cohere with the Bible’s true teaching regarding the spiritual and material realms. Robert Bowman, Jr., says it so well:

Sometimes our knowledge of the Bible will lead us to correct our mistaken notions about history or science or psychology. On the other hand, sometimes advances in our knowledge of these fields will force us to reexamine and refine, even correct, our understanding of the Bible. This happened, for example, when Galileo proved the earth revolves around the sun and therefore that the earth moves, contrary to the standard interpretations of the Bible at the time…A simplistic “Bible-only” application of this protestant principle that refuses to allow such corrections to our understanding of Scripture is destructive, in two ways. First, it divides Christians, because those who are open to all truth will not allow themselves to be held back by those who are closed to anything that will not fit their set interpretations of the Bible. Second, it hampers evangelism, because intelligent non-Christians can see that such “Bible-only” fundamentalism blinds its adherents to proven truth, and this discourages them from taking Christianity seriously (Cf. ORTHODOXY AND HERESY: A BIBLICAL GUIDE TO DOCTRINAL DISCERNMENT, p. 61)

Nor, I will say it again, does the sola Scriptura principle hold that the meaning and significance of any biblical text is self-evident, or that the Bible is self-interpreting to such a degree as to render useless or worthless how others have read and interpreted Scripture. All Scripture has to be properly read and understood within its proper literary, historical and cultural context before it can be properly explained and applied to our own modern situation; something which hierarchialists are conviently ignoring to promote their own set interpretation of Scripture.

Comment by Frank

June 30, 2009 @ 10:16 pm

After reviewing my last comment (89503), I see I over-used the words “proper and “properly” in the last paragraph, wish I now edit to read as follows: “All Scripture has to be read and understood within its proper literary, historical and cultural context before it can truly be explained and applied to our own modern situation, something which hierarchicalists conveniently ignore to promote their own set interpretation of Scripture.” And hopefully that is a smoother and more readable rendering.

I just received the latest issue of MUTUALITY, theme of which is “Walking in the Spirit.” And while all the articles are good, I said my most hearty “Amen!” to the one by J. Lee Grady, “Breaking Up the Good Old Boy’s Club.” And part of what he says is pertinent to our discussion of biblical interpretation, which I here will quote for benefit of all:

For centuries traditionalists have misread and twisted Paul’s words about women. Citing two difficult passages (1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:12), they have forged a doctrine of female silence and subjugation that runs contrary to the rest of Scripture. We don’t have room to dissaect these passages, but it should be noted that Paul was dealing with specific crises in Ephesus and Corinth when he made these statements. If we are to honor God in our Bible interpretation we must look at all Paul said about women, as well as how he worked alongside women. When closing his letter to the Romans, Paul mentions several women leaders who served on his apostolic team–including Phoebe, a deacon; Priscilla, a skilled Bible teacher; Tryphena and Tryphosa, whom he described as “workers”; Persis, a Persian woman he labeled as “hardworking”; and Junia, who obviously served in apostolic ministry (see Rom. 16:1-4,7,12). In other epistles he mentions women who led churches, such as Chloe (see 1 Cor. 1:11)…Paul obviously saw women as a strategic part of God’s plan. When he ventured into Europe he went to the place where women prayed–and Lydia, a businesswoman, was his first convert (see Acts 16:13-14). The Paul who clamped down on female false teachers in Ephesus is the same Paul who supported his female ministry comrades. We need to stop making him out to be a chauvinist when he was the best model of a male leader who empowered women” (MUTUALITY, Summer 2009, p.6)

And I am sure we would all agree with what J. Lee Grady says here about the true teaching of Paul on the true role of women in this Age of the Spirit, when both men and women are to be prophets of Christ and his kingdom. But what we also must see and take into account, when dealing with them, that it is the complementarian’s prior commitment to hierarchy forces them to distort and misrepresent Paul and his teaching regarding our corporate life and ministry under the New Covenant, which he clearly sets forth in Gal. 3:15-4:7; 1 Cor. 11:2-14:33; and 2 Cor. 5:11-6:2.

And sad to say, there may be times, like Jesus had to do with the Pharisees and Sadducees, when we must confront them and say, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures nor are you properly responding to the Holy Spirit (i.e., the Power of God)” (Matt. 22:29, my rendering). In other words, we need to warn our complementarian friends that when they fight against us and what we are seeking to show them from the New Testament,they may not be resisting us, but the Holy Spirit, who is speaking to them through us. And I say this with fear and trembling before the Lord.

Comment by Lori

July 3, 2009 @ 10:43 pm

Don in 89485:

[blockquote]That CBMW would publish such a shoddy paper shows a few things to me:

1. They simply cannot conceive that they MAY be wrong.

2. They write such articles to keep the already-convinced convinced. They cannot really be used to try to convince the searching or egals. But this strategy is only partially viable as long as non-egals are the majority.[/blockquote]

It’s like I joke with my husband sometimes after he tells me surprising news: “What can I say? I’m speechless–and not in a good way.”

I’m sorry if this is rude, but really, several times while reading Hess’s rebuttal I laughed out loud. If this is what passes for scholarship in the comp world, then it’s no wonder the secular world thinks Christianity is a joke.