Women, Slaves, and the Gender Debate
By Benjamin Reaoch
Phillipsburge, NJ: P&R Publishing 2012
Reviewed by Gary Derickson, Ph.D.
Professor of Biblical Studies
Corban School of Ministry
Not only is our world changing, but our theological world is quickly following suit. New hermeneutical methods are being employed by those departing from a traditional evangelical understanding of both Scripture’s meaning and authority to speak directly to our lives. An example of this is an approach to interpreting Scripture called the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic. To better understand both the hermeneutical approach and the dangers they represents, one must read through this work carefully and prayerfully.
Benjamin Reaoch informs us that when Egalitarian theologians found that they could not exegetically refute the arguments of their Complementarian opponents, that they resorted to a new hermeneutic to overcome the problem. Recognizing that the New Testament authors intended to define the roles of women in the church and in the home in what we today call a complementarian way, they sought an approach that could relegate those clear commands to being culturally bound and so no longer relevant. The Redemptive-Movement hermeneutic met this need. This hermeneutic seeks to “move us beyond the specific instructions of the Bible and toward an ultimate ethic” (Benjamin Reaoch, xvii).
Reaoch begins his evaluation of the hermeneutic by noting that Egalitarians are attempting to make their issue parallel to the slavery issue. They argue that, though the Bible never condemned slavery, Paul’s instructions to slaves was moving toward its rejection. It was the implications of those teachings that led to the later abolition of slavery. Their point is that as slavery was eventually abolished, women should be similarly “freed” from the Bible’s clear teaching of their subordinate role in the home and church (xviii).
Chapter 1 introduces us to the basics of the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic, which was built from an assumption that their understanding of Galatians 3:28 formed the foundation from which all other Scriptures should be interpreted. Further, the New Testament’s failure to specifically reject slavery or women’s subordination was a result of its being culturally bound (reflecting the culture of its day) and therefore no longer relevant to today (3-5). Thus the biblical commands must be understood based on the culture (and its assumptions) from which they arose. To the extent that culture has changed, those commands become less and less relevant (6-7).
Some of the significant issues addressed in this book with regard to the debate and the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic surround “the similarities and differences between the slavery texts and the women’s texts” (10). Reaoch excels in defining and demonstrating those very comparisons in a fair manner in which he readily admits to ambiguities as well as clear distinctions, strengths and weaknesses, even in his own views. He responds well to their attempt to make the two issues analogous. He notes, “The complementarian position observes a fundamental distinction between the slavery issue and the issue of women’s roles. The Bible does not, in fact, condone slavery. Rather, it regulates it and points to its demise. Regarding women, on the other hand, we find instructions that are rooted in the creation order and therefore transcend culture.” (13)
Chapter 2 provides us with Reaoch’s evaluation of the New Testament teaching on slavery in response to the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic. His discussion of Greco-Roman slavery as opposed to modern forms is very helpful. Further, he addresses the five passages where slaves are commanded to obey masters and notes the commands to masters as well. He admits in the process, “Theological analogy is not conclusive in determining whether a text s transcultural.” (31) Though I found his discussion very enlightening, I don’t agree with everything he says with regard to commands to slaves and how those commands might help determine the Bible’s view of women. However, his is a great example of exegesis and applied hermeneutics in responding to the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic.
In the next chapter Reaoch interacts with seven passages related to women and wives. He notes such things as “ground” clauses that give the basis of the commands and provide contextual clues as to how they apply today as well as in the first century. These are very helpful discussions in discerning the differences between the slave issue and women’s issues then and now. I found his explanation of Paul’s command to silence in 1 Corinthians 14 insightful and helpful, possibly the most defendable position yet (63-66).
Reaoch’s work continues in this vein throughout, providing a balanced, non-combative evaluation of the hermeneutic with sufficient examples to help us understand. Each chapter is weighty and requires further thought to fully understand the details and implications.
It is clear that students and teachers of Scripture need to be aware of this approach and how to respond to it, lest we see the authority of Scripture continue to be eroded in our churches, colleges, and seminaries. This seems like another method by which theologians can continue to call themselves inerrantists and evangelicals while dismissing those passages that do not fit with their lifestyles or theological grid. To protect ourselves and the next generation from this error, we must learn to recognize and respond to it effectively. Otherwise, as Reaoch notes that it is now being used in the Gay-Lesbian debate, it will be used by others as well to justify their lifestyles even when Scripture speaks clearly to the contrary. This book helps us meet those coming challenges.
