https://theologymatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/00Vol6-No1-TM.pdf
While there are certainly some advantages to understanding
the context of the Ancient Near East and while this knowledge can sometimes
elucidate certain episodes in Scripture, Bailey provides a sterling and
noteworthy example of how this should not be done.
His anthropologically-driven exegesis violates some of the
most basic canons of Biblical interpretation and repeatedly he inserts his
arguments, inferences, and speculations allowing them to override the reasons
given in the text itself. His arguments concerning Timothy, Ephesus, and role
of women, as well as his contrived inferences regarding the situation in
Corinth are more a case of eisegesis and undue speculation than any kind
faithful textual exposition.
One cannot be appalled when considering his manipulation of
the text when it comes to the Martha-Mary episode and the way in which he
(following many others) seeks to distort Paul’s teaching concerning deacons. He
fails to properly define the nature of the office and arbitrarily abandons the obvious
husband-wife paradigm in 1 Timothy 3, substituting it for a man-woman model and
thus radically changes the pattern being established by the apostle. As I have
stated previously, I believe a case can be made for deaconesses from both the
New Testament as well as the testimony of the Early Church (Pliny’s letter to
Trajan comes immediately to mind), but this office is not one of authority. The
fact that some male deacons also preached is incidental and not tied to the
normal function of the office. For that matter a case can also be made that
non-elders sometimes taught or shared in the context of the congregational
meeting – something women are explicitly forbidden to do.
His reading concerning Andronicus and Junia is forced – it
could just as easily be interpreted as they were a remarkable couple held in
high regard by the apostles who often referred to them. There’s no reason to
believe they were actual apostles.
Priscilla and Aquila were not a teaching team but a husband
and wife instructing Apollos – taking him ‘unto them’, there’s no reason to
believe this was in a public context.
This is not the same as a woman publically teaching and exercising an
authoritative or official role in the context of the Church.
It’s a separate issue, but I take great exception to the
employment of the NRSV which is not a faithful translation, nor should it be
utilized by those who have a high view of the text as well as its providential
preservation. The NRSV assumes the flawed canons of Higher Criticism and rests
on a flawed text, a flawed method of textual interaction, and bad principles of
translation. It is often regarded as the Theologically Liberal Bible of choice
– and for good reason. It’s use is suspect but given the overall trajectory of
Bailey’s argument – unsurprising.
Paul’s arguments against women teaching in 1 Timothy 2 are rooted
in the Edenic narrative. Contrary to Bailey’s somewhat tortured attempt at
inserting the cultural context, Paul does not make a cultural appeal. And in
the case of 1 Corinthians 11, the women praying and prophesying must be
understood in the context of the charismata and thus such episodes were
Sprit-driven and extraordinary. The normative practice is for women not to
teach and to be silent – as he sets out later in the epistle. It’s clear enough
from the context of the letter that Paul was already trying to move the
Corinthians away from a focus on the charismata more in the direction of normative
Word-centered practice – one in which women would not only be barred from
office (which was always the case) but also a scenario in which (absent the
charismata) they would have no occasion to speak.
And it must be stated that for those who want to argue 1
Corinthians 11 allows women to prophesy in the ordinary sense – then they must
be covered and that too is not cultural but rooted in creation – because of the
angels. I continue to find it more than a little interesting that such
feminist-driven motivations immediately chafe at such a notion – for in the end
the head covering is a mark of submission, something such women are inclined to
resist.
Bailey’s arguments fail on every front. In the case of some
Theologically Liberal-minded thinkers, the approach to such questions is rooted
in a kind of cultural hubris – we’re in the twenty-first century and we
don’t rely on outdated views of ancient misogynists. Obviously such people
(which dominate the Mainline denominations) are best described as unbelievers
and can be summarily dismissed.
But there’s another category which is becoming quite
prominent in the larger Evangelical sphere, those that essentially embrace the
same cultural attitudes and assumptions and yet want to take the text seriously.
Bailey belongs to the latter category and as such the article is an impressive
exercise in hermeneutical gymnastics as he is determined to force the text into
conformity with his culturally-driven views. But it’s an unfaithful and
dishonest way of interacting with the Holy Writings and for those who embrace
the authority of the New Testament on the basis of Christ’s Word and His
appointment of the apostolic authors – such forced readings must be
categorically rejected.