Chapter Two

EPHESIANS 5:21-33 READ VIA A REDEMPTIVE-MOVEMENT HERMENEUTIC
The Structure of the Passage
In their attempts to make sense of Paul’s train of thought translators have organized his words differently in their rendering of Ephesians 5:21. Reminding ourselves that the original letter to the Ephesians would not have contained paragraph markings, much less verse numbering, one must be careful in seeking to understand how the paranesis regarding married men and women is to be organized. Some translations regarded as being less word for word, such as the TNIV, the Message, and the NLT, choose to organize the paragraph in their translation with v.21 at the top beginning the section related to marriage. In these translations the reader would be led to believe that this sentence is not only the first sentence of a certain train of thought but that it is a heading for the material that is to follow. The TNIV and the Message have the sentence standing alone as a paragraph unto itself. The NKJV, NASB, and the original NIV have the passage included as the last portion of the previous paragraph separating it from the material that is to follow. There are important reasons why one should read v.21 as the first thought expressed regarding men and women in marriage. In fact, some contend that it does serve as a heading for Paul’s revised version of the ancient household code. At the very least, as the following reasons assert, if v.21 is not the heading for the section it should serve as a bridge between the two sections.
1. Verb Ellipsis One of the most obvious reasons to hold that v.21 belongs at the beginning of the train of thought that follows it is the fact that v.22 is dependent upon v.21 for its verb, to subordinate. The earliest manuscripts read v.22 something like this, “women to your husbands as to the Lord”. This verse is dependent upon the previous one for its verb and is not comprehensible without it. Later translations inserted the verb for the sake of clarity as do all English translations. This reliance upon the verb in the previous section is evidence of a continuity of thought between the two sections and implies v.21 is part and parcel of the content related to marriage. Markus Barth’s translation makes this connectedness all the more clear:
Because you fear Christ subordinate yourselves to one another – wives to
your husbands—as to the Lord. For [only] in the same way that the Messiah
is the head of the church – he, the savior of his body – is the husband the
head of the wife.

In his translation the emphasis is not upon the subordination of the wife to her husband but upon the overall subordination of one Christian to another and, from Barth’s perspective, wifely subordination is simply one application the mutual submission that is to take place among brothers and sisters in Christ.
2. Theme of “submission”(hypostasso) v.21 contains the fifth of five imperative participles that begin with v. 19: speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks and submitting. In this respect v. 21 fits with the previous section. But, thematically it follows that v. 21 be connected with the material following it because it appears to give direction to the meaning of submit throughout the household code. In this respect it might be more fitting to view the verse as neither the tail end of the previous section nor the heading of the upcoming one but rather a transitional statement that links the two together belonging equally to each.
3. Theme of “fear” (phobos) Another reason to view v. 21 as a part of the v. 22-33 is the thematic connection through the word “fear” or “respect”. This notion of fear, or respect, permeates the passage as the motivating impulse toward submission, love and respect. It is best interpreted not as terror, or a coercive type of fear, but as a form of reverence or awe that is consistent with worship always keeping mind the sovereign claim Christ has on the life of the Christian . Sampley sees this passage arranged as a literary unity precisely because of this thematic element expressed in v. 21 and v. 33 and is paralleled in v. 6:5 In this respect, the concept of reverential respect for others, begins and ends the paraenesis.
4. Chiastic Arrangement . The chiastic pairings of wives and husbands; husbands and wives gives structural clarity to this passage. It frames the verse in such a way as to direct the readers means of interpretation. These pairings are highlighted in both Sampley and Lincoln view who v.21 as a heading which introduces Paul’s version of the household code. In this respect the verse closes one train of thought while it opens another up. Regardless of where you place v. 21, at the end of the previous section as a summary to the participial phrases, or at the beginning of the next section about marriage, it matters little. Its impact on both the previous section and the latter one is clear. Both grammatically and thematically v. 21 significantly impacts Paul’s section on marriage in v. 22-33 and controls the meaning of submission in the following verses.

The Household Code As An Accomodation To Culture
Martin Luther identified them as the Haustafeln, household codes or household tables. These household codes were descriptions of behavior expected by those who were in a subservient position to the heads of the households in the Greco-Roman world. The casual reader of the New Testament they may not notice that descriptions of family relationships in both Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 have a parallel in the broader culture of the first century.
What Are The Household Codes?
When read from a modern perspective it is easy to assume that the passage in discussion is a description of marriage as twenty first century readers would understand it. However, to understand the household codes it is useful to understand the surrounding culture in which they were embedded. Whereas in recent years political leaders in our culture have declared the stability of the nuclear family as the cornerstone of a working society the political leaders of the first century would likely see the oikos as the cornerstone of a stable empire. However, oikos does not refer to what we have come to know as the nuclear family. In all likelihood the household codes were in place as much, if not more, for financial stability throughout the empire as they were for the health and safety of children within the nuclear family. While not denigrating what the codes say about domestic relationships they should be viewed in the light of the fact that a household of the time included parents and children, slaves and employees, distant relatives and business associates. Talbert contends that rather than applying these behavioral expectations solely to the nuclear family, as is the typical response in modern interpretation, that they should be applied to the family business.
It is clear that the household codes served to provide stability in a culture that demanded a reliable workforce which consequently required the individuals within that culture to know their place and not upset normal social arrangements. Divisions of labor and appropriate interaction leading to political and cultural stability were the driving forces behind the household codes. It has been noted that the infiltration of eastern religions upon the empire was perceived by many to be a threat to social stability and thus the codes were developed and/or reinforced because of this perceived threat. These “eastern” religions were often very attractive to the lower classes and women. This undoubtedly motivated a more reinforced household code within the Greco-Roman culture and its various subcultures. Ultimately, the household codes, regardless of source or motivation, by Paul’s time were descriptions of what was perceived as appropriate and inappropriate behavior by the various members of Roman society and were well known and understood throughout.

Where Did They Come From?
There is a great deal of evidence which links the household codes of Ephesians and Colossians with the thoughts of Aristotle and his observations of Greek domestic life. In fact the couplets in Paul’s writings seem to mirror directly the pairings that Aristotle himself identified and later these were reinforced by Roman Emperor Augustus with his insistence upon a hierarchical stratification in relationships along gender lines. However, it is possible that Paul’s source for the household codes was more of an amalgam and his train of thought influenced by a variety of sources. The source of the code has been a topic of much debate which has produced source suggestions as variant as the early Church, Hellenistic Judaism, Aristotelian philosophy and Stoicism. Paul’s cosmopolitan background would have certainly exposed him, on differing levels, to all of these disparate influences. Regardless of the source, this kind of mindset permeated all of Roman society from the individual to the corporate level thus Paul had to have consciously applied the model of the Greco-Roman Household Codes to his description of how men and women are to relate to one another in Christ.

Paul’s Accommodation To Culture
There is ample reason to view Paul’s use of the Household Codes as a means of connecting with the broader culture that he had set out to reach. Not grounded in a transculturally binding creation narrative they serve a more specific purpose of allowing the new counter culture, Christianity, to exist in a not so friendly world. This point of view must be distinguished from the point of view of those who view the inclusion of the household codes in Ephesians and Colossians as a retrogression from a supposed superior, and more egalitarian, Pauline ethic represented in Galatians. The argument that follows supposes that the inclusion of a Christianized household code in Ephesians represents both an accommodation to the broader culture of the Roman Empire and a means through which the church could advance principles of oneness, love and respect while not disrupting their ability to live within the dominant surrounding culture.

ACCOMODATIONS WITHIN PAUL’S HOUSEHOLD CODE
A cursory reading of Ephesians 5:22-33 could lead one to believe that Paul was simply reinforcing traditional household codes of his day by maintaining a form of patriarchy that keeps women in a servile position. However, when read in its complete context including 5:21 as part of the passage one can see the meaning of it “move” toward a more egalitarian ethic in Paul than is typically believed. This movement toward egalitarianism or “softened patriarchy” is supported by viewing Paul’s address to husbands and wives as both an accommodation to the traditional household codes and an attempt by Paul to radicalize the code within the Christian context. It is undeniable that Paul injects new meaning into the code. His discussion of love and respect; his addressing of subordinate parties; and his omission of key household code demands such as obedience from wives makes it clear that while Paul is evidently using the household code form, or genre, he is expanding it greatly, for the sake of oneness and equality within the Body of Christ. If one, in fact, agrees that Paul is modifying, in a redemptive fashion, the culturally accepted household codes of the ancient world of the first century then there is no reason not to accept that these are provisional, not permanent and that they are descriptive rather than prescriptive commands. In addition, through careful analysis there remains no reason why this household code could not be appropriately adjusted for changes that have occurred within society. What follows are six examples of redemptive-movement within Ephesians 5:21-33 utilizing Webb’s persuasive criteria.
1) Ephesians 5:21 represents “preliminary movement” toward an egalitarian relationship between husbands and wives. The first of Webb’s criteria, preliminary movement, describes how the component of a text may be cultural if it encourages development within it’s own culture and opens the way for further development in subsequent cultures. The submission that is to exist between members of the body of Christ, regardless of social standing or gender, highlighted in 5:21 exemplifies this type of preliminary movement. If this verse is to have any connection to the household code that follows it and it is my contention that it does as described above; then, it follows that 5:21 significantly modifies the household code as it was known throughout the ancient world. It is virtually unheard of for any of the household codes to suggest anything close to equality in standing much less submission from male to female. However, the fact that Paul, immediately after a call for mutual submission then speaks to wives about how they are to submit to their husbands suggests that while he desires to move the code forward he does not push it too far. He seems aware that advocating too much “equality” might lead to difficulties within the culture of the local church but also challenges in the relationship between the local church and the broader culture. He undoubtedly did not want to create unnecessary social disruption in Ephesus or anywhere the church was established. His proclamation of the Gospel was social disruption enough! The mutual submission described in 5:21 envisions a movement within the normal way that first century married couples related to one another that included an emphasis upon love and respect between partners. This type of love and respect, when it existed in marriages, did so because of the extraordinary relationship between the couple and certainly not because it was mandated by law or prevailing cultural mores. Yet this is the type of marital arrangement that Paul wants to promote. It might be interpreted by some that Paul gives with the right hand, v. 21 and mutual submission, and takes away with the left, v. 22 and wife only submission. This is not a necessary inference. Instead Paul is stating a fact of life, that Christians are to relate to one another in such a way that they esteem the other better than they do themselves through submission one to another, that is later expressed within the context of marriage. Paul’s statements in v. 22ff. do not negate what he has already said but instead reinstates a type of marital arrangement, though modified by mutual submission, that is familiar to his readers, acceptable to their current arrangement, and inoffensive to the milieu in which his readers lived. Paul’s modification was not so dramatic as to radically alter the way that the typical household operated yet it was powerful enough to inaugurate a more loving and respectful relationship between husbands and wives as the Christian standard. The word inaugurate is critical here because Paul is putting into the mix and idea, mutual submission, which recommends continued growth in equality between husband and wives.
2. Paul’s address of subordinates in his household code is a “breakout” from the broader cultural perspective. Another distinctive of Paul’s household code compared to that of the typical Greco-Roman codes is that he addresses the subordinates within the code and he addresses them first. The fact that Paul addresses wives tells the reader that wives were present when his letter was read publicly. He expected them to hear what he had to say and not simply rely upon their husbands for the information to trickle down to them. Not only were they assumed present in the public reading of Paul’s letter, as were children and slaves the other subordinate groups, but it implies that they are moral agents capable and free to make decisions about certain aspects of their lives. While the treatment of women throughout the First Century is far from monolithic it is clear from the traditional household codes that wives, women, children and slaves possessed little rights, if any, and did not have the freedom or capability to think or act for themselves. Ephesians 5 changes that by attributing a level of dignity to each of these groups. This is an example of Webb’s third criteria: “breakouts”. A breakout is an example where a biblical writer makes a clear and complete separation from the surrounding culture, whether the surrounding culture is the Judaeo-Christian community or the broader Hellenistic/Roman culture, and establishes a new standard. Paul awards a dignity to these three classes without overtly declaring them completely free or equal. Paul’s address of the subservient class, assuming in them a sense of moral agency, is a definite breakout from the Greco-Roman Culture as well as with the prevailing culture within Judaism.
3. Paul’s emphasis upon love as opposed to assumed authority is another example of a cultural breakout. After addressing wives, the subordinate party, the writer of Ephesians turns to husbands. In his address to husbands we see yet another contrast between the Apostle’s adjusted household code with the household code of the broader culture. Husbands are called upon to love their wives rather than enforce their wives obedience. The husband’s authority is assumed because of the surrounding culture but it not reinforced by Paul. It is implied but not defended. One should not to assume that Paul was promoting the end of all wifely obedience as much as challenging the expectations of husbands regarding their wive’s obedience. Certainly a husband cannot expect his wife’s submission unless he is loving her in a way that is similar to the manner in which Christ loves the church. While Paul breaks with culture by addressing wives as moral agents he goes further by the expectations he places on husbands and the “softening” of the patriarchy expected within that culture. The dramatic imagery of the husband loving his wife as Christ loved the church, the imagery of sacrifice and the imagery of oneness are dramatic alterations to the normal expectations men had related to marriage. From our modern standpoint it is easy for people to wince at the Bible’s description of the submissive wife. However, by the standards of the first century the demands the Apostle placed upon the husband would have seemed more out of place and, indeed, other worldly. On the one hand Paul is preserving the cultural standards of the day by telling or re-telling women to submit to their husbands, with some noteworthy qualifications, but on the other hand he is “subverting his culture’s values by going far beyond them.”
4. The call to submission instead of obedience suggests preliminary movement within the household codes. Related closely to the discussion above is the idea that the call upon wives to submit, rather than obey, holds significance for understanding the overall trajectory of meaning within the text. Why did Paul not include the traditional opinion of obedience for wives? Did he consider wifely obedience wrong? Certainly not, Paul remained, no doubt, a man of his time and thus found that wifely obedience was normal within his cultural milieu. In fact, Paul evidently sees no reason to address this issue of obedience and thus leaves any reference to obedience out but instead touches on a matter of the heart, submission. The use of the middle voice in the verb hypotasso/to submordinate carries the meaning of voluntary action. Paul certainly could have ordered obedience but he recognized that he would be dressing up the external side of the relationship rather than transforming the inside of the relationship. Submission, for both husband and wife, is a state of the heart. Where Paul could have demanded obedience that would leave the heart unaffected he instead calls for submission modeled after Christ’s submission striking straight at the heart of the person. This makes external obedience a by product of a heart rightly motivated by the Spirit.
Submission is further qualified by being “as to the Lord” (5:22) and “as the church submits to Christ” (5:24). These qualifications are connected with 5:21 where submission is rooted in fear and awe of God. Reverence and respect are the appropriate responses to God’s glory and sovereignty and submission is one means of expressing this respect. This harkens back to Webb’s idea of a “softening” of the injunctions to wives. Keener makes the point that while Paul gives extensive discussion to the notion of the love that the husband is to possess and act upon toward his wife that the wife’s command to submit is defined within the passage as “respect” from v. 33. In addition the verb form in v. 21 is rendered “to subordinate oneself under” again, implying a sense of voluntariness in the process of submission.
So where is the development in this text? When Paul defines submission as a matter of the heart and as a means of worshipping God he moves the meaning of the traditional household codes. No longer is wifely obedience the point but instead a life in relationship which is open and free enough that the wife would have little problem obedient, if that was necessary. When Paul moves his readers past the notion of obedience and on toward submission he is slowly moving the tradition to include a new kind of relationship which, on the one hand is not at odds with the surrounding culture yet indirectly challenges it toward greater social progress.
5. Submission conditioned upon love and the husband’s response to Christ is another example of preliminary movement. Here we see Paul putting yet another qualifier upon the relationship between husband and wife. It is also another example of the “softening” of the patriarchy within the Christian realm relative to that of the surrounding culture. At no time before had a woman’s submission to her husband been conditioned upon her husband responding in a Christ like fashion. Throughout the first century culture wifely submission or more appropriately stated subjugation, was assumed and enforced. While love for one’s wife was commendable it was not required.
Both members of the couple are to mutually submit, wives are to submit to their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives. After addressing wives Paul turns to the men and spends more time and space discussing the responsibilities of husbands than he does their wives. However, in all of the verses Paul addresses husbands he gives only one command though in a variety of ways. That command is for men to love their wives. It is reasonable to assume that Paul’s emphasis on a husband’s love for his wife is based upon the fact that the husband was the one with the power, social and physical power, to rule, dominate or abuse his wife. Just as Paul went to the heart of the matter with wives by focusing on the internal virtue of submission rather than the external behavior of obedience he does the same thing with men by focusing not on the way they “manage” or control their wives but how they love them. This love is expressed in a variety of ways but it is best illustrated by Paul through comparing the love a husband has for his wife with the love that Christ has for the church. A wife’s submissive response to her husband is dependent upon her husband’s responsiveness to Christ. Ultimately there is no submission where there is no love.
Paul appeals to husbands to love their wives based first of all on Christ’s love for the church. This is the model that Paul gives. Husbands, are to base their love for their wives on the way in which Christ loved the church by being self-sacrificial (5:25), serving (5:26-27), and cherishing (5:27). Note that in each of these comparisons between the husband and Christ no mention is made of Christ’s right to demand obedience of the church nor is there any mention of Christ’s superiority, although it is certainly assumed. The model for husbands from Christ life is based upon Christ’s identity as a servant not as a Lord. Paul also appeals to the husbands love for himself. Husbands are to love their wives and care for them in the same way that they would care for their own physical needs and Paul, in fact, makes the point that by doing so a man is “loving himself”. (v. 28) Here, Paul also touches upon the reality of oneness between Christ and the church and thus oneness between husband and wife. No analogy is perfect but this one makes the tremendous point that oneness in marriage is important in much the same way that oneness between God and his church are.

SLAVERY AS A HERMENEUTICAL GUIDE TO THE WIVES TEXT
Central to the Redemptive-movement hermeneutic is the idea that there is continued development, hence movement, in the interpretation and subsequent application of New Testament texts. This movement often takes the form of continuing development in the application of relational and ethical expectations which are expressed in Scripture. In contrast to a redemptive-movement hermeneutic a static hermeneutic, where one reads the words on the page in isolation, when applied to Ephesians 5 leaves one with a picture of wifely submission that is centered around obedience and benevolent patriarchy. (At its best.) Through a redemptive-movement lens one sees something different. The movement within the passage points in a direction of expanding equality between spouses and reduced levels, if not complete abandonment, of hierarchy through the command to mutually submit, love and respect the other.
If, however, this entire household code is read through a static hermeneutic and thus considered to be entirely prescriptive (how things are supposed to be) as opposed to descriptive (how things simply are) then how is the reader of Scripture to respond to the issue of slavery? If Ephesians 5-6 and Colossians 3 represent the fullest development of how men/women, children/parents, and slaves/masters are to relate then it is demanded of us that we ask the question: what about slaves? Consistency requires that a similar, if not identical, hermeneutic be employed in applying each of these passages. This begs the question, if what the church holds true for someone in slavery today, that the call to obedience to their master was not transcultural, then we are bound to offer the same concession to wives.
Someone advocating a form of continued form of hierarchy between husbands and wives might complain that women and slaves are not identical parties and that requiring that they be read through the same interpretive lens is a set up. However, while they may not be in identical situations women and slaves have more in common than do women and children or slaves and children. First, it should be noted that a women’s place in the first century did not provide here with opportunity to be other than what she was, a woman. This is similar to the situation of a slave in the same time period. It is true that slaves often had the opportunity to gain their freedom, or in some cases, regain it; there was no guarantee of emancipation. Children on the other hand, were not expected to remain children for the rest of their lives. For those who were eligible, that is children who were male and free, the opportunity to function as a free moral agent within the broader society was always an option. This was less likely for slaves and largely impossible for women.
Still others advocating a hierarchical model might suggest that the obedience of children to their parents is more like the submission that is demanded of women in the same passage. However, this still does not highlight more similarity between the two groups because women are not called upon to obey their husbands. Submission and obedience are related but they are not identical terms. Also, Paul clearly sets submission in marriage within the context of mutual submission fleshed out between the two parties in respect and love. Likewise, the masters of slaves are told to “do the same to them” implying a level of mutuality between those two parties. There is no such injunction to children when they are told to obey their parents. Lastly, while wives, children and slaves shared many of the same characteristics in the first century, such as dependence upon husbands, masters or parents, lack of financial independence, lack of social standing or voice, these distinctions have largely disappeared in the current culture in respect to women and those who might have been slaves. However, prudence dictates the obedience of children for their wellbeing and this obedience is not lifelong but a temporary arrangement until such a time as the child is judged as mature enough to make rational and reasonable decisions.
Redemptive Movement Within The Slave Text: 6.5-9
The fact that slaves were addressed at all by Paul is evidence of the fact that they were participants in the early church. Paul expected some slaves to be present when his letter was read and thus he addresses them directly. This fact makes clear that Paul considered slaves (along with women and children) to be people capable of making decisions and capable of controlling and changing their behavior. To a certain degree Paul’s addressing of these subordinate classes of people is revolutionary. He is inaugurating a leveling of relationships between those in positions of authority and power with those submitted to them and in their care.
In addition, Paul highlights the dignity of the person who is a slave by putting them in the same category as their masters, as fellow believers, and thus called to and capable of “mutual submission.” (5.21) This is further illustrated when Masters are called upon within the passage to be responsive to their slaves and to treat them much like they would themselves, “do the same unto them.” (6.8) Slaves and masters are enjoined to identify somewhat with one another and although the slave is not freed by Paul’s words his status is assumed to be somewhat elevated when his master is a Christian also. By being submitted to Christ the authority of the slave’s master is adjusted by the masters desire to be obedient and responsive to Christ. “Once it is said that slaves and masters have the same Master and are both answerable to him, the absolute rights of the master over the slave are relativized.” True, Paul does not abolish slavery in this passage. It was both beyond his ability to do so and beyond the scope of what he was trying to communicate. He is addressing slaves and masters at their interior point of motivation in their relationship to Christ. He is not, at this point, concerned with changing the significantly entrenched societal structure. In spite of this immediate concern of Paul’s it does not change the fact that salvific equality that exists between slave and owner greatly changes the dynamics not only of their relationship but of their social standing within the Christian community. This is based upon the fact that first and foremost slave and master are brothers in Christ as is illustrated so dramatically through Paul’s interaction regarding Philemon.
Attitudes Toward Slavery Changed
With some notable exceptions, the general development over the centuries, has been a gradual rejection by Christians of the permissibility of slavery. It must be noted that this change has occurred in part because Christians have discerned the redemptive spirit behind the texts of Scripture and rather than read the words of Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 in isolation they have drawn from the text the overall movement toward a recognition of the equality of all people and they have rejected slavery as simply wrong. This movement is evidenced even within the Old Testament but is more clearly articulated in the New when Paul declares in Galatians 3:28 that there is neither, “slave nor free”, and when he encourages the acceptance of Onesimus, “no longer as a slave but as a brother.” (Philemon 16) Clearly, yet indirectly slavery has come to an end, in part, because of an awareness on the part of Christian believers of the redemptive movement throughout Scripture.
Cultural conditions have changed as the institution of slavery became more and more repugnant. The household code expressed, and modified, by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament no longer reflected the realities of life for subsequent generations as people began to perceive the unacceptability of slavery as an institution. It became, in the minds of many, an affront to human dignity and a violation of the principles set forth in Galatians 3:28, Philippians 2:1-2 and the ethic of love expressed in I Corinthians 13 and the Sermon on the Mount. Over time, through listening to what the text was saying the Christian community has come to the conclusion that slavery does not reflect the ultimate ethic expressed in the New Testament.

Abolition of Hierarchical Marriage Is A Natural Consequence
This example of the Christian response to slavery shows that there is development and growth in the application of texts to the ethical concerns of Christians in the modern day. “We must go beyond the letter of Scripture when the trajectory of scriptural teaching takes us further than what Scripture explicitly says and requires us to recognize that some culturally specified scriptural teachings and commands are no longer mandatory.” So says, Howard Marshall when addressing the concept of equality between husbands and wives. He goes even further by suggesting that the authority of the New Testament is upheld only when it is interpreted in this way with its redemptive purpose and spirit in mind. “Paul’s teaching remains authoritative for today, but it is authoritative, just as he himself would insist, as an expression of the gospel. And it is the authority of the gospel that compels us to move forward into an understanding of how the structure of marriage is no longer to be understood in patriarchal terms.” In the same way that Athanasius and the early church fathers came to an articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, not apart from the words of Scripture but coupled with a discernment of the overall trajectory of Scripture, so we can come to an understanding on the most appropriate structure for marriage in our current day. Wifely submission is not to be rejected as much as it is to be joined by a form of mutual submission where husband and wife esteem one another as equals, defer to one another regularly and relate to each other first and foremost with reverence based upon their mutual commitment to Christ.

Light

I feel like there is a bit of light at the end of the tunnel. However, it may just cave in on me before I get out. Anyway, my production for the next two days is critical. Thanks to all who read and encourage.

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

There is an active debate about the role of women within the evangelical church that borders on polarization. In recent years this polarization has resulted in the formation of two groups that, described broadly, represent two different approaches to the interpretation and application of the relevant biblical material. This debate takes place over the role of women in ministry that manifests itself in a variety of ways; from women being ordained as priests in the Anglican church to women being allowed to teach men or young boys in conservative churches. This debate also takes place in regard to the role that women play in the home. With the advent of the women’s liberation movement of the last century and increased participation of women in places of leadership in religious organizations the question is begged: what about the role of women in the home? Are women to be considered equals with their husbands? Does Scripture allow such an arrangement? What does equality mean exactly and can there be significant restrictions in roles and activities of wives while maintaining equality between the husband and wife? It is the status of Christian women in the home, that is the subject of this study.

Thesis Statement
It is my contention and the focus of this study that the Apostle Paul’s instructions to wives and husbands in the Ephesians 5:21-33 is not at all contrary to the idea of complete and unmitigated equality between the sexes. In fact, when this same passage is viewed through what is called a redemptive-movement hermeneutic it is clear that the passage provides an example of redemptive movement toward equality and oneness, or in the words of some writers equal regard. The application of Paul’s words in our current cultural setting would necessarily require an arrangement between husband and wife that is at least egalitarian but even more a relationship of deep intimacy and oneness. This reveals in Scripture a theology of marriage that is both Pauline, derived from Paul’s writings and theology, and non-hierarchical or egalitarian.
My argument includes a description of the redemptive-movement hermeneutic at work in this area as well as others along with other research which supports a non-hierachical reading of Ephesians 5:21-33. It will first be necessary to demonstrate that the redemptive-movement hermeneutic is a valid method of application and interpretation and that it can be employed with consistency in a variety of Scriptural contexts. The redemptive-movement hermeneutic has precursors that are often called a developmental, trajectory or progressive hermeneutics. This method of interpretation and application takes seriously the original context of Scripture along with the current context into which that Scripture must be applied. The “movement” that is spoken of is a description of how the specific application of certain Scriptures change from context to context while focusing upon the redemptive intent of the author. The redemptive intent is considered to be transcultural, that is, transcending one culture and applicable across the bounds of culture and context. It will then be necessary to examine how Ephesians 5:21-33 could be read through such a hermeneutic and what results such a reasoned and cautious reading would provide. Secondly, there are several other arguments which are not specifically related to the redemptive-movement hermeneutic which support my contention that Ephesians 5 represents an example of Paul further advancing the cause of Christ through the tearing down of barriers between men and women. These will include: 1) the argument that the submission of wives is set in the overall context of mutual submission between all Christians; 2)a discussion of the image of headship and its meaning for this passage; 3)the linguistic evidence which promotes the idea of a voluntary submission on part of wives. The end result will be a recognition that the patriarchy of the 1st Century world is not held up to be the universal pattern for male/female role relationships for all time. In fact, it will be displayed that an egalitarian type of interaction which is focused upon oneness, mutual submission, servanthood and respect is to be preferred when exploring one’s options for the application of such a passage as this.

Developments In This Field Of Study
It is important to acknowledge some of the developments made in the study of men and women in the Bible up to this time. As mentioned previously there appears to be a polarization in this area illustrated by the development of two different organizations supporting two different agendas for women in the church. One group is called the Council For Biblical Manhood and Womanhood supports the equality of men and women when it comes to their reception of salvation and their intrinsic value in God’s eyes but maintains a functional inequality by restricting the participation of women in ministry and home. The Council For Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) was created in response to what was considered an unhealthy advance in Biblical feminism among evangelicals. Through the formation of the group and the drafting of the Danvers Statement, a text outlining the central concerns and affirmations of the CBMW, formally stated their position “equal in personhood and value, but difference in roles”. In the context of the home women are to submit to their husbands in a benevolent yet hierarchical arrangement. It could be viewed as a form of modified, benevolent patriarchy. This form of modified, benevolent patriarchy is sometimes referred to as the traditional perspective. However, it will be illustrated shortly that this description is not accurate. People who adhere to this perspective often refer to themselves as complementarians, reflecting their belief that men and women have complementary roles which are established by God, and grounded in the order of creation, within the church and the home. This complementarity includes a hierarchical arrangment between men and women, husbands and wives, based upon certain passages from the New Testament such as I Timothy 2:11-15, I Corinthians 11:3-12, and the passage which is the focus of this study Ephesians 5:22.
The second organization is called Christians For Biblical Equality and those who adhere to the principles advanced by this group are often referred to as egalitarians and sometimes as evangelical feminists. These terms represent a point of view that advocates equality and opportunity within the Christian community based upon a more complete understanding of the Bible. The egalitarian perspective advances the full equality of women and men in all areas of Christian life including leadership within the church and shared responsibilities within the home. This group also supports their position through an appeal to Scripture and contends that God’s ultimate redemptive desire is not mere equality between men and women, husbands and wives but for oneness within the Body of Christ. This oneness, they contend, is greatly hindered by restrictions on the roles of women based on anything other than their giftedness. In relationship to roles within the church the egalitarian camp holds that positions of leadership and teaching, roles typically restricted to men, are to be distributed along lines of spiritual giftedness “without reference to racial, social or gender distinctives.” Within marriage husband and wife are to mutually submit to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, live as co-heirs of the grace of Christ, and practice a form of headship which focuses upon oneness between the head and the body, not domination or rule. It is crucial to note that both complementarians and egalitarians hold these commitments as a result of earnest and sincere study of Scripture (as can be observed by looking at the statement’s of faith adhered to by each along with a cursory examination of some of the primary texts used in defense of each position). Neither makes their view of the role of women in church and family a confessional norm nor do they assert that this is a determinative issue for one’s Christianity. However, there are many examples of this issue creating a deep polarization between the groups as the creation of separate organizations, publishing houses and respective journals illustrate.
As mentioned earlier the complementarian view is sometimes held up as the traditional perspective on gender roles while the egalitarian perspective is viewed as a recent, novel addition. However, it needs to be noted that neither perspective is more or less traditional or novel than the other. The authors of the seminal text on hierarchical complementarianism, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, point out in their introduction that they want to distance themselves from what the true and unfortunate reality is regarding the traditional status of women in the church. It is equally important to make a distinction between what is traditional and what is biblical. What is biblical has often been eclipsed by the traditional and people on both sides of this debate recognize the necessity of recovering biblical truth from dogma reinforced by centuries of negative tradition. Sarah Sumner, in her book Men and Women in the Church, traces out the negative impact that many early church fathers had upon the church’s understanding of women. Tertullian identified the woman as the one solely and originally responsible for the fall of all mankind and characterized them as the “devil’s gateway.” A complementarian, Daniel Doriani highlights the blatant misogyny in Tertullian’s writings and with the editors of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood recognize the problem with identifying too closely with the traditional view of the role of women in the church. In addition, Augustine endorsed the idea that woman was not an image bearer of God and that the company of woman was desirable only for the sake of procreation. From his perspective a woman’s company was much less desirable than a man’s because of the woman’s reduced ability to participate in conversation or intellectual pursuit. While Augustine remains one of the most important theologians of the western Church we must recognize his fallibility and the possibility that his own moral failings as a young person made it difficult to perceive women apart from a negative sexual connotation. This point of view was also endorsed by Ambrose and other church fathers. Sumner summarizes this point by stating, “What I am trying to say is that women’s equal worth is a novel idea in church history.” Tradition is not to be disregarded because it is fallible but neither is it to be followed when it departs from biblical teaching.
With few notable exceptions the history of the church paints a picture of gross inequality and maltreatment of women through the ages. Fueled by a misreading of the Bible and a misunderstanding of God’s work in redemption misogyny has been a common experience for Christian women within the church. These examples from the writings of leaders in the early church illustrate the necessity to return to a biblically formed understanding of how men and women should interact in both the church and the home.

The Structure of this Study
The overall structure of this study is as follows. In chapter one, there will be an analysis and description of the redemptive-movement hermeneutic with a brief example of how it works in relationship to Galatians 3:28, passage many believe to be the cornerstone Scripture regarding relationships between men and women, husbands and wives. Chapter two will briefly examine the Pauline authorship of Ephesians and provide some historical background which sheds light on the life of the church in Ephesus of the first century. In chapter three I will apply this hermeneutical principle to the Ephesians passage by utilizing Webb’s persuasive criteria, designed to help the reader determine the applicability of such passages across contexts and cultures. In this process I will pay special attention to the interpretive impact of the household codes, Paul’s instructions regarding the treatment of slaves, and comparison to other Scriptures within the Pauline corpus. In chapter four there will be a review of some of the other arguments which support a non-hierarchical reading of Ephesians 5 including the meaning of the word kephale, a discussion of mutual submission in v.21, and a focus on the image of oneness portrayed by the Apostle Paul in the passage. Chapter five will look at the positive outcomes for Christians who approach married life recognizing an equality and oneness between the sexes.

Chapter One

THE REDEMPTIVE MOVEMENT HERMENEUTIC
The debate over the full equality of men and women in church and home is fought largely in the realm of hermeneutics. Succinctly defined, hermeneutics is the study of the biblical text with the ultimate goal of proper application. For the Christian, however, exegesis alone, the understanding of a text upon its own terms, is not the only goal but application for the sake of personal and corporate transformation. This means that the reader must move beyond exegesis and move toward the application of the truth within the text in the reader’s current cultural context. This challenge is intensified when trying to apply a text that is bound up in the cultural trappings of its time to the much different socio-cultural context of today. This necessitates a hermeneutic that seeks a culturally appropriate interpretation for the sake of transcultural application.
William Webb, in his text Slaves, Women and Homosexuals, describes a hermeneutic which takes into consideration the cultural context of the original documents and provides a means of applying the content of the text in a culturally appropriate way in a contemporary context. He identifies his method of interpretation and application as the redemptive-movement hermeneutic and he contrasts it with what he calls a static or stationary hermeneutic which applies the words of the text “isolated from their ancient historical-cultural context with minimal or no emphasis on the spirit of the text.” On the other hand, a redemptive movement hermeneutic seeks to understand the redemptive spirit of the text and apply it in the contemporary setting in such a way that its redemptive purpose is preserved. In today’s setting there are times when we can simply “do the words” of the text and fulfill the redemptive spirit behind them. This happens because the “cultural horizons of the two cultures overlap” . However, there are many places in Scripture where simply “doing the words” might actually mitigate against the original intent of the human author and the Holy Spirit. Webb points out that the term, “redemptive-movement hermeneutic is derived from his concern that Christians apply the redemptive spirit within Scripture, not merely, or even primarily, its isolated words.” A more detailed description of this hermeneutic will be provided. It is useful at this point to highlight the fact that similar hermeneutics have been applied throughout the history of the church and in recent years it has been utilized in the debate regarding the role of women within the church.

Precursors of the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic
As mentioned above, hermeneutics has always been at the center of this current debate. Many of the scholars debating this subject from the egalitarian perspective have utilized some form of developmental, trajectory or redemptive-movement hermeneutic. In order to partially validate Webb’s model I will describe three of these interpretive models advanced by other egalitarian writers. Namely, Bilezikian’s progressive model which focuses on the creation-fall-redemption motif; the developmental hermeneutic advanced by Richard Longenecker; and the trajectory hermeneutic employed by R.T. France. There is similarity and overlap between each of these models and Webb’s and I will attempt to point out these points of connection throughout a description of each.
Gilbert Bilezikian, professor emeritus at Wheaton College, provides a model of interpretation in his book, Beyond Sex Roles. He opens his book with these words, “The basic premise of the interpretive method followed in this book is that God’s revelation of Himself and of His will is progressive.” He continues by noting that everything in the Bible is related to the one of the three concepts supported by the words: creation – fall – redemption. Creation, in this motif, demonstrates God’s original intention for the entire cosmos and especially human beings. Fall represents the “temporary thwarting of divine purposes that resulted from human mutiny against God’s will.” Redemption is a reference to God’s initiative, derived from his very nature, to restore what was broken and corrupted through the sinfulness of man and the results of the fall. By exploring Scripture through this hermeneutical lens one can see God’s redemptive purpose reflected in the oft culturally bound words of the text. Bilezikian sees God’s redemptive work being accomplished through two different stages. The first is initiated through the person of Abraham as recorded in the Old Testament and identified by the author as the “old covenant”. Its purpose was to anticipate the full redemption that would arrive through the person and work of Jesus Christ.
This second stage is referred to as the “new covenant” and its intention is to restore the original purposes of creation through the ministry of Jesus within the community he created, the church. Its final consummation will be witnessed through the second coming of Christ “when the negative effects of the fall will be completely obliterated and the new community becomes the eternal community.” In this model the redemptive purpose of Jesus’ incarnation is the guiding concept in understanding all gender passages.
Bilezikian highlights two important advantages within this model. The first, is a model that enables the reader to read portions of Scripture under an appropriate heading which provides and interpretive lens for the reader. For example, when reading the first chapter of Genesis the reader is enabled to put it under the heading of Creation. The first chapter illustrates God’s design for mankind in all areas of life. When reading the third chapter the reader can place the text under the heading of the Fall. This description helps the reader understand that what follows is a description of the results of mankind’s rebellion against God and the reader is to recognize that such descriptions do not reflect God’s ultimate goal. One can then proceed to Genesis 12 and look at the calling of Abraham and God’s promise that, through Abraham all of the world would experience a blessing. This is to be understood in light of the heading, Redemption. It looks forward toward God’s ultimate purposes being reinstated and redeemed mankind experiencing the type of fellowship and oneness that was present in the Creation narrative. Much like Webb, Bilezikian is challenging the reader to seek the redemptive intent within the text.
A second advantage highlighted by Bilezikian is that such an interpretive model is derived from the Bible itself and is not an arbitrary guide to reading Scripture. This concern expressed by Bilezikian is shared by other scholars who employ similar methods for interpreting Scripture. Of course, those Christians who are not committed to the authority of the Bible and the inspiration of Scripture have no problem dismissing various passages of Scripture by an appeal to the current culture and circumstances. However, for Bilezikian and other evangelicals, this is not an option and developing a means for understanding Scripture that gives Scripture the respect it deserves is vital. In this respect Webb is quick to point out that his choice of terms such as “redemptive-movement” or “redemptive spirit” reflect his “concern that the derived meaning is internal, not external, to the biblical text.
Richard Longenecker’s developmental approach is a similar model for interpreting the texts related to the role of women in church and family. He identifies four rules of interpretation that should guide such inquiry. First, in the New Testament redemptive categories take precedence over all others without minimizing them. For example, throughout the New Testament there is an emphasis on the “new creation”. This is Paul’s means of describing the experience and process of redemption within the Christian community. Longenecker is joined in this by Gordon Fee who accents the importance of “new creation” theology in the New Testament by appealing to such passages as 2 Corinthians 5:14-17, Galatians 3:26-28, and Romans 6. Fee states, “The new creation, therefore, must be our starting point regarding gender issues, because this is theologically where Paul lived. Everything else he says comes out of this worldview of what has happened in the coming of Christ in the Spirit.” New creation and redemption categories are essential to understanding Paul as they are at the center of his theology.
The second rule focuses one’s study first upon the ministry of Jesus before appealing elsewhere. Longenecker says, “A proper Christian approach, I believe, is to begin the study of any issue at that point where progressive revelation has reached its zenith, that is, in the ministry of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels and the apostolic interpretation of that ministry in the writings of the New Testament.” This is closely related to the first rule in that Christ’s work represents the climax of redemption and it is in his words and ministry where we most clearly see the basis for all of our behavior regardless of the context.
The third rule guiding Longenecker’s developmental hermeneutic calls upon the reader to distinguish between what the New Testament says about life in Christ and the degree to which it is implemented in the first century. This requires the reader to recognize and accept the fact that much of what is commanded by Christ and the early apostolic writers is in it’s embryonic stages when we read about it in Scripture. In this respect we can more easily identify the cultural conditions for women in the first century and understand the restrictions placed upon them by Paul in his letters. These restrictions need not be read as being based in God’s ultimate plan but they should be recognized as initial steps toward full implementation. F.F. Bruce recognized this distinction when he wrote regarding Galatians 3:28: “Paul states the basic principle here; if restrictions are to be found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus….they are to be understood in relation to Gal.3:28 and not vice versa.” Bruce recognizes the prescriptive nature of this passage and makes it a standard by which similar passages are to be interpreted. It makes sense to assert that there were differing levels of implementation throughout the New Testament. This is a crucial principle to follow because of the apparently divergent voices about the role of women throughout the New Testament. While not a simple task, nor an easy one, it is necessary.
Longenecker’s fourth interpretive principle focuses on the effect of circumstances upon the application of redemption and the new creation. These circumstances, which are not always known to the modern reader, must be taken into account as we seek to understand all passages in the Bible. However, they must especially be considered when trying to interpret and apply so called “hard” passages such as 1 Timothy 2:15. (Is it possible for this verse to be understood without taking into account the extenuating circumstances in Ephesus?) This is also a means of resolving apparent contradictions in Scripture and paying due respect to Scripture as a document that is of both divine and human origin. In addition this allows the reader of Scripture to look at the diversity within Scripture as a resource rather than a liability. Longenecker’s “developmental hermeneutic” is similar to Bilezikian’s in the respect that he advocates redemptive categories over all others. Also, Longenecker’s hermeneutic is compatible with Webb’s redemptive-movement hermeneutic which sees redemptive categories as primary along with the movement of Scripture, or development in Longenecker’s terms, pointing in the direction of God’s ultimate redemptive purposes. Longenecker points out that his hermeneutic is not without some support in the history of interpretation by pointing to the Antiochian Fathers, Chryostom and Theodore, who accepted the idea of a developmental method of interpretation, that although operating very much from a grammatical-historical standpoint, safeguarded an understanding of the progressive nature of revelation. Webb also argues that this type of hermeneutic was in play with Athanasius as he sought to expound the doctrine of the Trinity.
R.T. France has espoused a trajectory hermeneutic, in part, to aid in his defense of the ordination of women within the Church of England. France does not spell out his perspective as clearly as Longenecker or Bilezkian but he does provide some basic guiding principles to use in understanding the difficult texts related to gender. As a New Testament scholar he points out that thorough exegesis on all passages related to gender must be undertaken before seeking to apply the truth found in those passages to the contemporary context. He stresses however, that there comes a time when one must move beyond exegesis into the realm of application. Readers must ask whether the principles of the first century apply in our current century and to what extent they do. If they do in fact apply then how are they applied? Again, simply “doing the words” of the New Testament does not insure that one will do what was intended by those words. One must ask the question: Do we apply this passage in the same way or are there now more appropriate ways of applying the same Scripture? In addition, France asserts that one must set any given passage within the broader context of the whole of Scripture. With these principles France is in agreement with Bilezikian and Longenecker and has, in his own words, articulated a portion of Webb’s redemptive-movement hermeneutic.
In addition other scholars have held to many of these same principles of hermeneutics. Grant Osborne provides some useful guidelines for the effective determination of whether a passage is transcultural or not. Those principles that are consistent with the hermeneutics described above and with the redemptive-movement hermeneutic include:
1)Didactic passages must be used to interpret historical events…
2)Passages must be interpreted in light of their (historical and
literary) context.
3)By using tools of redaction criticism, the interpreter can distinguish
between teaching prompted by the immediate situation and that which
represents earlier, normative teaching for the church
4)Teaching that transcends the cultural biases of the author will be
normative.
5)It a command is wholly tied to a cultural situation that is not timeless
in itself, it will probably be a temporary application rather than an eternal
norm.
6)Those commands that have proven detrimental to the cause of Christ in
later cultures must be reinterpreted.
Each of these guidelines is reflected within the redemptive-movement hermeneutic. It is a developmental understanding of interpretation recognizing that new insight and application can be found within the text of Scripture.
In fact, almost all egalitarian scholars presume some developmental component within their hermeneutic. Bilezikian, Longenecker and France are not alone in their endorsement of trajectory or development in the text. Webb, Sumner and France each recognize that those espousing the hierarchical-complementarian position have arrived at their current position by looking for the meaning that stands above the cultural constraints of the text whether it is in relationship to marriage or women in ministry. If not tacitly endorsing a redemptive-movement type of hermeneutic they are, at least, being selective in their application of texts to their complementarian position.

The Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic Defined
The redemptive-movement hermeneutic is a fairly new development in the field of Biblical interpretation. However, as has been displayed it is not without it’s predecessors and the principles behind it have been employed by numerous interpreters for quite some time. In fact, Webb, would likely acknowledge that this means of interpretation is utilized sometimes without the knowledge of the interpreter and often at an intuitive level. It may be more accurate to describe the redemptive-movement hermeneutic as the culmination of these other trajectory approaches. One criticism of this approach is that it is “more asserted than argued.” These interpreters and especially Webb are the exception to this case. Webb takes great pains to establish the validity of his model creating a nuanced hermeneutic that equips the interpreter to assess the level of control the cultural context of a passage plays on its contemporary application. No longer is it appropriate to dismiss certain passages as “cultural” without exploring a means of application that is “transcultural.”
The redemptive-movement hermeneutic is an attempt to understand a text by examining how it would have been applied in its original culture which often reflects a less redeemed social ethic and then applying that same text in a contemporary culture which possesses a more advanced social ethic, all the while looking forward to the ultimate social ethic that is reflected in the text.

Webb’s Model
While Webb’s hermeneutic is more complex I will focus on his persuasive criteria. Using the author’s original description I will add more content to the brief discussion of each.
Persuasive Criteria
1) Preliminary Movement
A component of a text may be culturally bound if Scripture modifies the original cultural norms in such a way that suggests further movement is possible and even advantageous in a subsequent culture.

This concept causes the reader to ask the question: Has the text made a statement of change that is absolute, no more redemptive progress will be made than what the text indicates, or has it made preliminary movement which anticipates more redemptive change. For example, Scripture clearly indicates that Christ’s grace is the ultimate development in the scheme of salvation history. However, the sacrificial system and the law in the Old Testament anticipated and even described, in prophetic terms, what Christ has delivered. The law and sacrificial system describes preliminary movement toward redemption while Christ’s sacrifice delivers the absolute change. After Christ’s sacrifice no further sacrifice is needed nor anticipated.
In comparison with the subject of this study one need only look at the status of women in the Old Testament compared to women in the New. There appears to be some development between the Testaments regarding the status of women. In the Old Testament the woman had no right or opportunity to initiate divorce yet in the New that opportunity becomes available, although the results of a divorce were still more detrimental to the woman than to the man. Likewise, in the realm of sexuality the wife was considered little more than the property of her husband who could do with her as he wished. In Paul’s teachings there appears a leveling of the field when he describes a type of sexual interaction between husband and wife that requires equality as in I Corinthians 7:1-5. . In the comparison between the two Testaments we see movement but now one is left to ascertain if the results found in the New Testament signify the end of this movement or is there more to come? From the standpoint of this author, and Webb, there is. One reason to assume this is that the treatment of women in comparison with the broader culture and the religious culture of Judaism represented in the Old Testament was much improved, it was “softened” and “less restrictive” than what one would find in either context. This idea will be explained further in the exegetical section of Ephesians 5:21-33.
2) Seed Ideas
A component of a text may be cultural if “seed ideas” are present within the rest of Scripture to suggest and encourage further movement on a particular subject.

Seed ideas, like their description suggest, require continued growth in a later context that outstrips any gains made in its original context. The metaphor that Webb uses is apt because it describes a progressive type of application that requires more intensive responses from later readers than from earlier. For example, Galatians 3:28 describes a change in status among three different groups in which great divisions existed. In the instance of the second groups, slaves and freemen, the proclamation did not create immediate equality. However, this concept grew in the environment of the early church to the point that slave owning Christians had to reconsider the practice and contemplate the release of those people who had formerly been their property. One might look at it like this. In Galatians Paul lays the groundwork in what is probably his earliest extant epistle. He continues with this theme in I Corinthians where he cautiously advises slaves to access their freedom if they can. (I Corinthians 7:21) But he fulfills this even further when in Philemon he urges the former slave owner to release the man who was once his property and receive him “as a brother.” So, in this example of Paul’s attitude toward slavery we see the seed idea planted in Galatians and I Corinthians and the fruit possibly harvested in the letter of Philemon.
3) Breakouts
A component of a text may be culturally confined if the social norms in the reflected in the text are “broken out of” in other biblical texts.

Breakouts show further development or progression than do the criteria of preliminary movement or seed ideas. Breakouts, like the name suggests, illustrate a significant break with the current culture through redemptive movement. The two previous criteria point toward or suggest the change and largely remain unrealized whereas a breakout is a more definitive movement and change away from the culture. A breakout is an explicit challenge to the status quo. One example of a breakout in the New Testament that is not related to the topic of this paper is the subject of eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols. All one needs to do is to look at the letter from the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:20,29) that forbade the eating of meat sacrificed to idols and compare that with Paul’s direction in I Corinthians 8:1-10. Here we see what appear to be emphatic statements regarding this practice. However, within the same letter as one of these prohibitive statements is a breakout from what would otherwise be considered a biblical norm. Paul’s appeal to conscience makes it clear that the injunction of the Apostles in Acts 15 and his own words in I Corinthians 8 are bound by their specific context and are not to be transculturally applied to our contemporary context since the command was abandoned to accommodate for a slightly different context within Corinth itself.
Webb mentions some other examples of breakouts relative to our discussion of gender. Again, a breakout is an example of the realization of preliminary movement or a seed idea and, reminded of the fact that the legislating that occurred in the Old and New Testaments took place in a patriarchal framework, we see several examples of women taking places of prominence and leadership within these contexts. Webb notes Deborah as a judge, prophet and military leader. (See Judges 4-6) He also draws attention to Huldah who teaches or, at least, interprets the law for the King in 2 Kings 22; Priscilla, in the New Testament, is described as one who helps set Apollos straight in Acts 18:24-26 where she is also recognized as one of Paul’s coworkers and who receives greater attention than her husband when her name is listed first, a break with typical writing convention; and lastly he mentions Junia, “outstanding among the apostles”, who is understood by the best linguistic evidence to be the name of a woman instead of a man as has often been asserted. Each of these represent a breakout from the typical male dominated culture that is endorsed by the writers of Scripture as being good if not normative.
Lastly, I Corinthians 7:3-5 is an example of Paul stressing equality in the sexual relationship between husband and wife. This is a striking example of a break with the contemporary culture where wives were considered to be physically weaker, less capable cognitively, and the actual property of their husbands. Even if it is argued that Paul’s injunction applies only within the realms of the sexual relationship of married couples it definitely illustrates a clean break with the surrounding Greco-Roman culture and the Jewish culture from which Christianity arose.

4) Purpose/Intent Statements
A component of a text may be culturally bound if by practicing the text one no longer fulfills the text’s original intent or purpose.

An interesting example of this can be found in Paul’s directive to “greet one another with a holy kiss.” (Romans 16:16) The original purpose of this command was to create a sense of community and acceptance among members of the Body of Christ. However, in American culture practicing this would be at least distasteful if not completely inappropriate and would convey a much different message than was intended. The are other culturally appropriate means of communicating acceptance and creating community among believers. By following this command literally, in today’s culture, we might actually mitigate against effect which the text was written to create.
Webb also highlights the submission lists in the New Testament as an example of this criteria. In Titus 2:9-10, I Timothy 6:1, I Peter 2:13-15, Titus 2:4-5, I Peter 3:1, and I Peter 2:12 one sees submission being commanded for the sake of an evangelistic objective. None of these passages seem to command submission to the respective parties, slaveholders-government-husbands, for the sole sake of the submission itself but for the kingdom advancing effect that the slave, citizen or wife would have through their respectful deference. One way to discern if this criteria is in effect within a passage is to examine how well the intent of the passage would be accomplished if the command is obeyed literally. A contextual component of a text is less likely to be transcultural if it’s literal completion produces the opposite effect.
5) Basis in Fall or Curse
A component of a text may be transcultural if its basis is rooted in the Fall of humanity or the curse.

In his fifth persuasive criterion Webb addresses the issue of the Fall. In doing so he makes the point that simply because hierarchy is rooted in the Fall does not make hierarchy something that is to be perpetuated through the Christian community. He makes the point that texts related to the Fall are primarily indicative as opposed to imperative. They describe the way things are not the way things are supposed to be. In this respect the subordination of the woman, a result of the Fall of Mankind, is a description of what happened and not a picture of God’s ultimate arrangement between the sexes. In fact, we are to fight against the results of the Fall and the Curse not perpetuate them. Of his five “persuasive criteria” this last one appears to be the least useful in interpreting the difficult texts regarding the place and possible equality of women in the New Testament.

Galatians 3:28 Via Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic
Virtually all egalitarian interpreters view Galatians 3:28 to have far reaching social implications. Bilezikian describes it as the “inaugural statement” for the believer within the New Community. Snodgrass believes that it represents a turning point in salvation history which brings with it new realms of opportunity for women in the church. Fee connects this passage with the importance that Paul placed upon the idea of the “new creation” which included a new relating between members of Christ’s body. Likewise, Longenecker, Grenz, Giles, Keener, Webb and others contend that Galatians 3:28 speaks in a significant way to the social interaction between the sexes. Bruce’s perspective, mentioned previously, is that this is the passage through which all other gender passages are to be interpreted. Of course, the thought that Galatians 3:28 has significant social impact is not without it’s critics, most notably the book length work by Richard Hove and the treatment the text receives in Piper and Grudem’s text.
From the perspective of the redemptive-movement hermeneutic this passage provides a fascinating case study. Each of the three couplets in this verse display one, or more, of Webb’s persuasive criteria. The following is a brief description of how they interact with what egalitarians consider a key passage.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek…”
The first of the couplets identifies the deepest social tension within the early church and proves to be an excellent example of Webb’s third criterion: breakouts. When Paul makes this declaration he is initiating a break with both the prevalent culture and the culture within early Christianity. Rather than allowing the fledgling church to advance a prejudicial culture which it inherited Paul pushes the issue to the point of conflict. It matters little whether the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 took place before or after the letter to the Galatians was written because the tension between ethnic groups remained even after that event and circumstances required continued attention. The Apostle was so determined to change the direction of racial prejudice within the early church he confronted Peter and Barnabas’s improper behavior. (Gal.2:11-13) He revisits this concept in his other letters as well. (Eph. 2:11-22; Col. 3:11; I Cor.12:13)
“…slave nor free…”
We witness less movement in this area than we do in the previous one. Within the first century and the text of the New Testament there are fewer examples of a break from the original culture with regard to slaver than there are in regard to Jew/Gentile unity. However, in the realm of slavery we see in 3:28 an example of both criterion 1: preliminary movement and criteria 2: seed idea. Though subtle, movement is seen in this passage. One can’t deny that Paul’s proclamation of “neither slave nor free” did not bring an immediate end to slavery in the church or in the culture at large. However, preliminary movement is suggested in that a new expectation for behavior within the church is expressed. One certainly could not own slaves without at least evaluating if not significantly changing how those slaves were treated. This proclamation of Paul’s suggests further development that we actually see in later portions of the New Testament. It is a seed idea in the respect that the basic idea is planted among Paul’s readers and brings about fruit in subsequent circumstances. For example, in I Corinthians 7:21 Paul states that if a slave can gain their freedom, within certain implied limits, that they should. This seed idea bears full fruit in Philemon where Paul goes further and asks Philemon to receive his returning slave Onesimus back not as a slave but as a brother. (v.16)
“…male nor female…”
Paul’s declaration here is best viewed as a seed idea that sees both breakouts and preliminary movement in various places throughout the New Testament. Understandably, when read with a static hermeneutic, this verse could be understood to mean that men and women have equal access to salvation without any significant change in their social standing within the church. However, when read in context with the other two couplets it is difficult to avoid the trajectory of this verse. This is especially true when taking into consideration the variety of portrayals of women through the New Testament. Once it is set into the other “in Christ” (Col.3:11, I Cor.12:13) lists it becomes even clearer that there are social dimensions to this passage. If there is a radical equality in light of the accessibility to salvation for all of Christ’s followers then it only makes sense that interaction between groups would prove to be more open and equal.
One may wonder why the movement between Jew and Gentile seems to exceed that of the other two. Relative to the conflict that existed between Jew and Gentile the other divisions were less of a problem and would have required more societal change to reinforce. There was little movement at the time toward equality between the latter two in the broader culture and less need for it in the immediate context. However, as demonstrated, there is movement in the New Testament relative to each.

Another Day

Ok, I have made it another day and accomplished very little but I think I need more emotional support in this process than I do intellectual or research help. It is a rollercoaster. One minute I feel the drive and the momentum is going my way. Another minute I feel frozen and cannot accomplish anything, can't even put a word to paper. If I do manage to get a word to paper I discover later that the word is almost meaningless. It doesn't even make sense to me.

Here are some words that are meaningful only to initiates: redemptive-movement hermeneutic, transcultural, trajectory hermeneutic, shibbolethilization, is.

Writing this down is giving me a smidgeon of hope. It gives me a breath of fresh air.

Thesis...Schmethis

This Thing is killing me. I hope I make it another day.