The document under examination consists of more than 50 pages, and it is quite deadly in that it combines truth with error under the guise of being scholarly. It is quasi-scholarly in that some sources are cited for particular points, but others are just assumed without any evidence. Furthermore, no reputable brethren are quoted—genuine scholars, such as J. W. McGarvey—only liberals such as James W. Thompson and Carroll Osburn of Abilene Christian University. The rest of the works mentioned are from denominational writers.
“Responsible Biblical Interpretation”
Does this heading imply that all previous works on this topic were irresponsible? Hmm. Most of the principles that follow are ones that brethren have been using for at least two centuries, and they include such usual advice as considering the culture of the day, consider the writer, consider the audience, etc. One inclusion is curious, and another is puzzling. When describing the types of literature in the Bible, the phrase dram proverb is used (1). One wonders if one must be a Ph. D. to speak like this. Probably the word dram is being used in the sense of “a small amount,” but why use the word at all—unless to make oneself look impressive? Do not brethren know what proverbs are?
A more serious flaw glares at the reader. It is affirmed that the Bible: “is NOT a series of propositions and commands” (1). Such verbiage was undoubtedly cooked up in liberal kitchens. Since any Bible reader knows that commands are commonplace, one wonders what the author desires to communicate here. Jesus used both logic and propositions quite effectively. Has the composer of this material read Paul’s logical defense of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 lately? The author of this material should have explained more precisely what he meant and upon what basis his case rests, but he just asserts this point, thus prompting the reader to be on guard while studying his material.
Two Major Views
Two major views do exist—Christ’s and Satan’s; truth and error; right and wrong. The flaw in this work is that it gives credence to error as though it were as legitimate as truth—something that is totally unacceptable. In this document the author refers to the egalitarian view (which contradicts the Scriptures) and the hierarchal or complementarian view (the Scriptural one).
The complementarian holds to the truth that God has designed the male to lead in the home and in the church, although women are “full participants in church and civic life, with the exceptions of church administration and preaching” (5).
By egalitarian is meant that there is an equal “partnership in marriage” and equal ministry opportunities for women as well as men (5). This view obviously rejects the teaching of the Scriptures and is misnamed. Some might get the impression that if God assigns different roles to men and women, then they are not equal. But the assigned roles have nothing to do with equality. Therefore, this designation is not a fair one, and it implies that any other view does not regard women as equal, which is false.
After a study of the events of Genesis 1-3, the author, who is Kerry Hadley, lists points made from the egalitarian and complementarian perspectives. The third egalitarian point is erroneous:
There is no hint of hierarchy in the creation of men and women until the fall. Therefore the subjection of women to men is a consequence of the fall (Genesis 3:16), which is removed by the gospel (9).
Genesis 2 states that man was created first; Paul confirms that this order is significant in 1 Timothy 2. So it is not the case that hierarchy is not hinted at. It is also a wrong assumption that the subjection was removed by the gospel. Has the sorrow and pain that attends childbirth been done away with since Jesus died on the cross? Did the ground stop being cursed for Adam since Jesus arose from the dead? Have men ceased returning to the dust? Christ’s death did not change any of the penalties that God pronounced upon the man and the woman. No one can rightly proceed merely upon an assertion, which is all this view is.
The other affirmations also lack merit. The fourth one says that there is no significance between the order of male and female, “since the animals and plant life were created before man” (5). Would they say the same thing if woman had been created first? 1 Timothy 2:13 makes the order significant. Animals and plants cannot compare to men and women; Paul does not list them in part of the hierarchy in 1 Corinthians 11:3.
The problem with relying on statements only found in Genesis is that not all of the information on a subject is necessarily found there; other passages relate to it. The Bible student does not discover until 2 Peter 2:5 that Noah was “a preacher of righteousness”; it is not mentioned in Genesis. Likewise, it is not revealed until Hebrews 12:25 that the blood offering of Abel was to atone for sin (as a type of the blood of Christ). The New frequently comments on the events of the Old; thus we have inspired commentary.
Galatians 3:28
This verse shows that in Christ, being a Greek or a Jew does not matter. All are one. The same is true of slaves and free men, as well as male and female. All are equal in terms of God’s acceptance. While this fact is significant, it does not change relationships. A slave was still a slave. He could not go to his master and claim that, since he had become a Christian, he was no longer bound to him. That relationship remained unchanged. Likewise, the relationship between men and women stood firm. The fact that all are individuals of worth in Christ says nothing about the roles God placed upon each.
The egalitarian views of this passage are warped. The idea of a return to equality in Christ, already examined, has no proof. Equally without merit is this statement by Hadley (of the West Orange Church of Christ, which meets in Winter Garden, Florida):
Since Paul regulated behavior relating to the institution of slavery without advocating it, the same would be true for his teachings on male/ female relationships. That would make the idea of female subjection a cultural concept, which changes as cultures change (12).
What meaneth this gobbledegook? While it is true that Paul did not advocate abolishing slavery, nevertheless, his teachings on the matter do apply to any culture that allows the practice today.
But the relationship between men and women is not that of slave and master. A society can exist with or without slavery (which is definitely preferable), but no society will last long without both men and women. Thus the two situations (slave-master, male-female) are not comparable. The husband-wife relationship is a good one, but slavery is never a desirable one—especially for the slaves. Thus, no proof at all exists that suggests that Paul ever taught that the roles of men and women were cultural.
The egalitarians decided that Galatians 3:28 is a universal principle and that everything that contradicts it must have been written for specific situations, which is simply another baseless assertion. The egalitarian house is built on a foundation of sand. Actually, sand would make a much better foundation than what they are using.
Women in the Old and New Testaments
A thorough listing of all the prominent women is provided from the Old Testament. This time, however, no egalitarian and complementarian views are listed. So, the study moves on to women in the New Testament. As it begins, however, it assesses the previous material by saying that “women held some surprising roles in a culture which was pervasively male-dominated (patriarchal)” (18). This statement, while technically true, does overlook several pertinent observations. One of those was Athaliah, who usurped the role of queen without God’s permission. A legitimate role for women must be authorized by Him. Two other women cited are Deborah and Huldah, to whom men came. It is not as though they were crying out in the streets, as Jonah or Jeremiah had. In other words, those “surprising roles” involved conditions and qualifications.
Many assertions are also made about events that had an influence upon Palestine between the testaments, but no examples or documentation is provided.
The New Testament section begins with the notation that several women were mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy (something not generally done). Calling attention to this fact is legitimate, but then Hadley wrote: “Even more surprising is that all but one were Gentiles and at some point were suspected (some justifiably) of dubious moral character” (18). For what purpose was this comment made? Shades of “Christmas at Matthew’s House.” (This article by an ACU professor called Mary, the mother of the Lord, “another sexually- questionable woman.”)
Just because someone may have been suspected of something is irrelevant; what are the facts? Tamar did something that we would call morally wrong, but Judah said that she was more righteous than he was (Gen. 38). He had not given her the son he had promised to her, which means she had no child. While her actions cannot be condoned, she was not someone who continually lived immorally. Thus, to characterize her as a woman of dubious moral character is unfair.
Rahab was admittedly a Gentile and a harlot—but only up until the time of the conquest. Afterward, she changed her ways. Do we refer to someone as being of dubious moral character after she has repented?
Ruth, so far as the text reveals, was never suspected of being immoral; certainly she never was, although she was a Gentile. Mary may have been suspected of being immoral, since she had a child before she and Joseph had completed the terms of their engagement. But the key fact here is that she was not guilty of any wrongdoing. Bathsheba was guilty of a one-time indiscretion but later became David’s wife.
Why would anyone want to besmirch the characters of Ruth and Mary and make the other women sound worse than they really were? For someone trying to expand the role of women in the church today, Hadley certainly seems to have a low view of them.
After mentioning the prominence of Elizabeth and Mary, along with Mary’s song, in Luke, the writer next points to Anna as a prophetess, concluding that “the role of prophetess continued from the Old Testament accounts through the intertestamental period” (18). It proves no such thing—any more than the words of Simeon, spoken by inspiration just previous to hers, proves that prophecy was common during that era. We do not know if there were prophets during that 400 years; all we know is that we find them in the New Testament. With all the warnings about being careful with Bible interpretation at the outset of this study, it is interesting to see so many assumptions being made.
The study goes on to note that women were among Jesus’ disciples and that He spoke and interacted with them. Does the author think that women were to be invisible? Supposedly, His actions were to have defied all of the social conventions of His day, and some of them did, but no one ever accused Him with respect to women being amongst His disciples. They accused Him of nearly everything else, but social contact with women was not one of them.
One point under this section is both puzzling and bizarre. It reads thus:
Women were “apostles” to the “apostles.” (Matthew 24:9-12) (19).
In verse 11 of that passage, Jesus did say, “Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.” But He made no comments about women or prophetesses in this passage. Yet the heading of this section of the “study” proclaims: “Some of the ways in which women figured prominently in the Gospels.”
Probably, it is the wrong reference. Luke 24:9-12 fits much better. It records the women telling the apostles what they had seen at the tomb. The writer may be making a play on words, since an apostle was “one sent.” They were apostles to the apostles. The problem is that no one “sent” them; they went on their own.
Acts
The information about Acts begins with an error. Following the lead of denominationalists and Pentecostals, both of whom are quoted throughout the study, Hadley blunders by asserting: “Acts 2 begins with the disciples gathered together and the Holy Spirit coming upon them.” No, Acts 2:1 says they came together, not the disciples. The antecedent of they is Matthias and the eleven apostles (Acts 1:26). Yet the study continues: “Men and women were speaking in tongues (‘they were all together’ v.1)” (19). For all of the cautions about responsible exegesis made at the outset, these comments are inexcusable. Hadley even provided a quote that states: “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.” This statement is true, and the reader has now seen a first class example of it.
The fact is that all throughout the second chapter of Acts no one is said to have spoken in tongues besides the twelve. Most denominationalists and Pentecostals say it was the 120 mentioned back in Acts 1:15. The only thing they lack is proof. Were there 120 sitting in the house? Were there 120 cloven tongues like as of fire? Were all of the 120 Galileans? Then why did not Peter stand up with the 120? We read instead that Peter stood up with the eleven (Acts 2:14). The text does not provide any indication that the women were speaking in tongues on this occasion.
Phoebe
After covering some of the legitimate references to women in Acts, Hadley moves on to Romans 16:1 and Phoebe. The Greek word describing her is diakonon which, according to Bagster, is “accusative singular, masculine and feminine” (91). In other words, the noun is masculine, but since women are likewise servants, it may be used of them, also. Most reliable translations have chosen “servant” to put in the text, although some have “deaconess” as an alternative in the margin. The unreliable Revised Standard version puts “deaconess” in the text, and the even more unreliable New Revised Standard Version (the version of choice used in this study) simply uses “deacon.”
Diakonos appears in the Greek 30 times in the New Testament; the King James translators used “minister” to convey the thought 20 of those times. The remaining renderings were “servant” (7 times, including Phoebe) and “deacons” (3 times: Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12). Notice that the three times “deacon” was used as a transliteration, the translators knew of a certainty that what was being discussed was a special office or work of the church, which had qualifications for the men to meet. Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 indicates such a special work. This study emphasizes context at the outset and then ignores it with respect to its “interpretations.” In fact, the author plainly says that Phoebe is “identified as ‘a deacon (diakonon, sic) of the church of Cenchrea’” (20). No, she is not. The text does not even hint at such a notion. Being a servant of the church is not limited to gender; the work of an elder or deacon is!