Rightly Handling God’s Word – A Contrast Between Principles and Practice
A review of God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Biblical-Theological Survey, by Andreas J. and Margaret E. Köstenberger (Crossway, 2014). 380 pages.
The basic idea of this book is a good one. The idea is to present a broader biblical survey rather than focusing only on proof texts concerning men and women.
The survey occupies seven of the principal chapters, covering
- Genesis 1 – 3
- Old Testament
- Gospels
- Acts
- First ten letters of Paul
- Letters to Timothy and Titus
- Other New Testament teaching.
Disappointingly, the book does not deliver on what it promises.
The authors have doctorates and have served as professors in biblical seminaries. In their book, they have much to say about proper standards and methods for faithful interpretation of the Bible. It is appropriate to assess their work by reference to the good principles which they endorse. I’ll pick out some of them and number them.
PRINCIPLE 1: “It’s hard to see how an interpreter can credibly claim to be open to the teaching of Scripture on a given issue while subscribing to a set of beliefs that rule out certain interpretations at the very outset.” (349)
The authors make a candid revelation early in the book. They disclose that they have ruled out all egalitarian interpretations at the very outset: “We’ve approached our subject in the understanding that the Bible, in both Testaments, teaches . . . male leadership.” (20)
The distorting effects of this prior understanding are apparent throughout the book.
For example, their survey of Paul’s letters omits any mention of what Paul teaches in Corinthians 7 about mutuality of marital authority. It does not fit into their beliefs, which rule out such an idea at the outset.
The authors do not adhere to Principle 1. We will see some more examples as we consider the other principles.
PRINCIPLE 2: A biblical-theological survey should be “an accurate presentation of what Scripture actually says” (19).
If we look in the Bible for a command from God that men ought to be the leaders of women, we will not find it. That is not “what Scripture actually says”. This fact is in conflict with the authors’ prior understanding that the Bible teaches male leadership. So, their prior understanding inevitably leads them into inaccurate presentations of “what Scripture actually says”.
For example, they state that in Genesis the woman received God’s command not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil through the man (175). They say this to support their viewpoint on male leadership.
But it is not what the Bible says. It does not say in Genesis or anywhere else that the woman received the command through the man. That is their speculation, based on their prior understanding concerning male leadership.
Referring to the book of Acts, they say: “The elders appointed in all the churches were male (Acts 14:23; 20:17-35).” (143)
But there is no statement in Acts 14 or 20 about the elders of “all the churches”, nor is there a statement that they “were male”. Acts 14 is silent on the sex of the elders appointed in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch. Acts 20:30 implies that at least some of the elders appointed in Ephesus were male. That is as far as the text goes.
It is hard to know how the authors could have thought that the references given in Acts showed that the elders appointed in all the churches were male. Perhaps, in addition to their prior commitment to male leadership, they were influenced by a misunderstanding of Greek grammar. When they comment on 1 Peter 5 and again assert that all church elders were male, they place reliance on the fact that the Greek word presbuteros (elder) is grammatically masculine (249). But grammatical gender does not determine meaning. The dictionary meaning of this word is “elder”, not “male elder”, and the context does not show that only men were being referred to, whether in Acts or in 1 Peter.
Their prior belief has severe impacts. They misperceive even simple facts. They are so keen to contrast men’s prominence with the secondary “role” of women that they write:
“Luke’s account is especially instructive. Jesus is shown to appoint the twelve apostles at the very beginning of his Gospel while his women followers are first mentioned near the midpoint of his narrative.” (107)
But this is counterfactual. The Twelve are appointed in Luke 6:12-16, almost a quarter of the way through the Gospel. That is not “at the very beginning”. The group of women followers is first mentioned just a little later, in 8:2-3, less than a third of the way through the Gospel. That is not “near the midpoint”.
What is “especially instructive” here is the authors’ misrepresentation of the biblical evidence.
The authors do not adhere to Principle 2.
PRINCIPLE 3: “the life of Jesus—both his teachings and his practice—should occupy a central place in our thinking and actions” (80)
There is a debate over whether Jesus intended his choice of twelve Jewish male apostles to provide a pattern for future male leadership in the Church. The authors believe that he did (91-93).
However, the authors rightly recognize “The apostles’ Jewishness is not a timeless entity but a salvation-historical phenomenon” (93) and “the number twelve likely has symbolic significance” (94).
So, if neither the apostles’ number nor their Jewishness provides a pattern for the future, how might we know whether Jesus intended their maleness to provide such a pattern?
Applying Principle 3, we should examine his teaching to see whether he taught that future leadership in the Church should be male. But the authors do not take this step.
If they did, what would they find? Throughout the Gospels, there is no teaching of Jesus where he says that future leadership in the Church is to be restricted to men. (Nor do the apostles themselves say this.) By taking this position, the authors are adding to God’s word a tradition of men.
The authors do not adhere to Principle 3.
PRINCIPLE 4: “Understanding the context is vital to correct interpretation. . . . Context is king!” (324)
The authors say: “Regard for context may seem like common sense, but you’ll be surprised how often it is disregarded, or insufficiently considered, in biblical interpretation.” (329)
This good principle may be contrasted with what they call “Dubious word study to support preferred interpretation” (327).
The authors pay lip-service to Principle 4 when they determine the meaning of Paul’s “head” metaphors in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23. They say “careful study of the context” yields the conclusion that Paul’s metaphorical sense of kephalē is “authority”. But in practice they determine the meaning first, from their word study (171), before examining the context of each passage (173-178, 180-186).
The core of their argument is:
“First Corinthians 11:10 explicitly uses the language of authority (Greek exousia), and in Ephesians kephalē is used throughout the book to denote authority (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23 [twice]]).” (171)
But this presentation of their word study is in conflict with the actual contexts in the two letters.
In 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10 is Paul’s only explicit mention of authority. And in that verse he refers to the exousia (authority) which the woman ought to have. Yet in Paul’s metaphor in verse 3, he does not refer to a woman as a kephalē. Verse 10 does not support the Köstenbergers’ position. It is in direct conflict with it.
In Ephesians 4:15–16, the head metaphor refers to what we could call saving provision – the head nurtures the body. This is not a metaphor of authority but of life-giving nurture. The same meaning applies in 5:23, as Paul makes clear in that verse, which refers to Christ as ‘savior’ of the body. Paul also makes his meaning clear from the nature of his instructions to husbands in 25–33a. None of those instructions is about exercising authority over the wife.
Paul’s head metaphor in Ephesians 1:22–23 is different. It may connote authority. But it is not authority over the body. Christ is head of all things for the body. His body is seated with him above all things (see 2:6).
The authors also disregard the wider biblical and historical context. They argue from a modern understanding of “the human brain and the place where people reason, make decisions and control the body” (171). But in the first century it was a matter of controversy whether the head was the directing organ. And the New Testament never refers to the head as the place of thoughts and decisions. Instead, it uses the conventional language which speaks of the “heart” as the place not only of feelings and desires but also of thoughts and decisions (see, for example, Mark 2:8; Luke 1:51; 24:38; John 13:2; Rom. 1:21; 10:10; 1 Cor. 2:9; 4:5; 7:37; 2 Cor. 3:15; 9:7).
The authors do not adhere to Principle 4.
PRINCIPLE 5: “interpreting words in keeping with their conventional meaning at the time of writing” (322)
To adopt “unlikely word meanings” is a “hermeneutical pitfall” (350).
When God calls Adam and Eve to account for their disobedience, he declares “the consequences of the sin” (46). The authors suggest interpreting Genesis 3:16 to mean that the man “might harshly dominate” his wife (48).
But that suggestion is not in keeping with the conventional meaning of the Hebrew verb mashal. It means “rule”. In Genesis 3:16, it is correctly translated as “rule” in around 50 English versions, including NIV and ESV. This word occurs with some frequency in the Bible, and there is no example where it means “harshly dominate”.
When Paul rounds off his instructions about hair or head coverings at Corinth, he says “we do not have such a custom” (1 Cor. 11:16). The English word “such” translates the Greek word toioutos.
In common with some translations which misunderstand this passage, the Köstenbergers render this word as “other” (177). That meaning fits into the Köstenbergers’ misunderstanding of Paul’s train of thought, but it is the opposite of its conventional meaning.
Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11:10, they reverse the meaning of exousia (authority), making it refer not to the authority which the woman ought to have but to the woman wearing a symbol of her subjection to authority (176). There is no precedent anywhere in Greek writings for that reversal of the conventional meaning.
The authors do not adhere to Principle 5.
PRINCIPLE 6: It is “important for us to be guided by the evidence” (143)
There is abundant evidence concerning Priscilla and Aquila.
In light of the evidence, the Köstenbergers rightly say that this couple were “strategic partners with Paul in his mission in multiple locations” (148). They also concede: “Clearly, Priscilla and Aquila are an inspiring example of a couple who were completely committed to propagating the mission of the church through church-planting in strategic urban centers . . .” (149) and “vitally involved in establishing new churches as part of the Pauline circle” (150).
Despite these correct concessions, they say: “It’s clear that the nucleus of Paul’s missionary leadership team was composed of “faithful men” (2 Tim 2:2) who were closely associated with the apostle in his gospel preaching and planting of new local congregations” (144). By using the ESV’s mistranslation of 2 Timothy 2:2, they screen out Priscilla.
One wonders who they think was in charge of the new church in Ephesus when Paul went travelling, if not the other two members of Paul’s church-planting team, Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:19–21). One wonders why they think Priscilla and Aquila took it upon themselves to correct Apollos, and why they think the mighty Apollos listened to them (Acts 18:24–26).
According to the Köstenbergers, Priscilla merely helped her husband instruct Apollos (121).
But there is evidence which explains, in the cultural context, the significance of Priscilla’s name being given first. If they had attended to the evidence, they would have learned that Priscilla was the primary teacher, as Chrysostom pointed out in his Homily 30 on Romans.
In Romans 16:6 the Köstenbergers notice that Paul also mentions “Mary, who has worked hard for you.” They say: “We don’t know anything about Mary, other than her hard work” (152).
But if they had attended to the evidence, they would have learned from Chrysostom who she was and what she did. He explains that she was a travelling teacher, who also performed other ministries (Homily 31 on Romans).
In Romans 16:7 Paul refers to Junia as an apostle. Yet in keeping with the Köstenbergers’ prior belief about male leadership, they consider it likely that “Junia’s ministry was with other women” (155).
If they had attended to the available evidence, they would have discovered a different picture. Chrysostom explains that Andronicus and Junia were outstanding among the apostles “because of their works, their achievements” (Homily 31 on Romans). In the traditions of the Orthodox Churches, they are remembered as converting many to Christ, healing people, driving out demons, and founding churches. The traditions do not indicate that Junia’s ministry was only to women.
The authors do not adhere to Principle 6.
OVERVIEW
The authors depart from their stated principles for faithful interpretation of the Bible. The above examples could be multiplied several times over.
The book provides a salutary lesson in how a prior set of beliefs can distort the thinking and perceptions of even the most well-intentioned and highly educated authors. It is deeply flawed.
Explore Further
For more detailed discussion of examples of the Köstenbergers’ departure from the principles, see Bartlett, True Complementarity: The Way of Christ for Men and Women,
- Chapter 4, under ‘Was Jesus giving a pattern of male leadership for his Church to follow?’
- Chapter 4, under ‘Jesus’ agenda for the ministry of men and women’
- Chapter 4, under ‘Jesus, the male leader’
- Chapter 8, under ‘Deborah’
- Chapter 12, under ‘Church elders and submission in 1 Peter 5’
- Chapter 13, under ‘Examples of church elders in the New Testament’
- Chapter 13, under ‘Church hosts as elders?’
- Chapter 14, under ‘Did Priscilla teach with authority?’
- Chapter 17, under ‘Impact on our understanding of Paul’s views on women’s ministry’
- Chapter 30, under ‘Sex’.