Y Safle

It is my belief that it is essential to understand the cultural conditions to which scripture was written in order to properly understand it. It is a principle of good bible study that a thorough exegesis should be carried out before discussion of hermeneutics. In English, that is to say that we must fully understand what the passage was speaking to those to whom it was delivered before we can compare the passage to our present situation and work out the application.

Many disagreements over application of Bible passages arise because we do not carry out our exegesis properly in the first place. An example might be the instructions on the eating of meat. Paul says that we may eat any meat in good conscience, whilst having regard for the weaker non meat eating brother.

By jumping straight into the application of this passage we might say that vegetarianism is allowed but not condoned by Paul, and that vegetarian Christians are weaker in their faith. Strong Christians, we might say, can eat meat with good conscience.

Most people realise that Paul is not talking about vegetarians here, but how many of us really understand what he is talking about? Some think he is talking about eating non-kosher meats such as pork. However the exegesis turns up something that would have been much harder for the early Christians.

The problem was that meats on the market invariably came from temples where they had been offered to idols. The meat therefore was not only non-kosher but it had been offered to false gods and Christians were worried about their testimony in eating idol meats. Some Christians were worried enough to refrain from eating any meat. Paul however said that it was quite permissible to eat idol meat, knowing what it is, as long as it did not offend a weaker Christian.

Now clearly this passage is unlikely to have direct parallel to our current situation. Meat at the butchers shop is not offered to any idols these days, and thus the difference in culture between the 1st Century and this one will cause us to apply the passage in a different manner.

Note however that the exegesis is eternal. This above is what the passage says, and will always say, and it is only when we understand the exegesis that we can look properly for application.

Where there are comparable particulars clearly the passage can be applied as it is written. For instance I can eat “hallal” meat when I visit muslim friends. However there are other comparable particulars – notably our attitude to weaker brethren. If we could do something that would cause a brother to stumble then we should refrain.

Other particulars could also be drawn but I shall not labour this passage but skip to the thorny issue of women keeping silent in Church and Paul’s word in 1 Timothy 2:12 to that effect.

Firstly then we must carry out the exegesis of this passage. Many people make a big deal of the specific Greek words used by Paul in this passage (especially the word “authentein” meaning “authority” although a later colloquialism came to mean “lord it over”). Few scholars actually believe that Paul meant to say “I do not allow a woman to lord it over…” but I noted with sadness that an IVP commentary suggested this interpretation with no discussion of why it is unlikely.

I have already written an article on why Paul used some non-Pauline vocabulary in the pastoral epistles, related to this verse and it seems to me that the infrequency of the use of the word authentein is no justification in and of itself to suggest that its meaning should also be considered unusual. Also the colloquialism does not seem to have been in use at the time of the writing of the pastoral epistles, nor does it fit with the general tenor of Paul’s remarks.

Other options have been given as to what Paul meant. Some suggest that the church services were segregated with the men near the speaker and the women in a balcony where they were chatting or calling to their husbands, but there is no evidence that this was the practice of the Christian churches, which more probably met in houses where all were close together. Indeed, some churches would not have a main speaker or speakers, but all might speak and teach.

We must assume then that Paul is saying that within the church women must be silent and learn in submission to their husbands. It is hard, but this is the only possible exegesis of the passage.

However, in the light of many other passages of scripture, we know that there is a balance to this restriction. Indeed we find women instructing men (although not within the church meetings) and we know that women were allowed to speak and prophesy within Corinthian church services (as long as they wore a head covering – and that requires yet more exegesis).

Thus I believe that Paul is almost certainly speaking in terms of authority in speaking. In other words, the precursor to modern preaching. I do not think we can understand that Paul said a woman was never to ask a question, nor even was she prohibited from prophesying, but in the work of providing authoritative teaching, there appears to be a prohibition. Now it is the responsibility of the reader to complete the exegesis of this passage, looking at Paul’s reasons for the prohibition, to decide what the comparable particulars are.
On the face of it though, we are left with the possibility that it is wrong to ordain women as ministers of the gospel. This is an evangelical dilemma, because on the one hand any evangelical wishes to hold scripture in the highest regard, and on the other hand man evangelicals want to believe that Paul’s prohibition is merely cultural. The onus is on the serious student of scripture to demonstrate this is the case, without prejudging the issue (and that is the difficult part).

You see, we all bring our cultural assumptions to scripture, and it is easy to suppose that scripture must be saying something other than it is saying, because we know that it should say so. Leaving those assumptions behind is the hard part in studying scripture.
The question must be asked of those evangelicals who think Paul’s prohibition cannot apply today, what do they think Paul was saying. Most will argue that, like idol meat, the culture that required women to be silent in church has passed away and the culture in today’s church is different.

Such an argument is not anti-evangelical, because the exegesis remains essentially the same. The argument is that Paul said what he said and his instruction is faithfully recorded, but there are no comparable particulars because Paul said what he said based on cultural necessity of the day.

Whilst not anti-evangelical, I believe this latter interpretation has allowed modern culture to colour the exegesis somewhat. Paul never hints that the reasons for his strictures are cultural, and the reasoning he gives is based on scripture. I would argue that evangelicals who would ordain women to the ministry have perhaps assumed a passage is cultural without giving it fair reading.

Having said this I must admit that I equally could be wrong in my interpretation (indeed I can hope so). People will disagree on these passages for many years yet, but let it be noted that neither evangelical group has said that the scripture is useless, was incorrect or flawed when it was written. It is simply a matter of the exegesis – the work of student of the bible – that is in doubt.

This then is an inevitable consequence of allowing every Christian to study the Bible and perform their own exegesis. It would be easier for us if a ruling church body could just dictate the correct interpretation, but faith was never meant to be so easy. We cannot be spoon fed our beliefs forever but rather we should be serious students of the word of God, writing it upon our hearts so that we might not sin against our Lord.

Remember the words spoken in the book of Joshua “This book of the law shall not depart from your lips but you shall meditate on it day and night….” (emphasis mine). We are called to serious study of these passages, but it is also our duty to learn to study correctly, always carrying out our exegesis before our hermeneutics and trying in every way to avoid the tendency to let our own culture and outlook
colour our exegesis.