Challenges of Marriage and Singleness

P

riscilla

The academic journal of

P

apers Vol 35, No 3 | Summer 2021

CBE International

Challenges of Marriage and Singleness

3 Phoebe Palmer: Fountainhead of Evangelical Egalitarianism in Canada Shelley Siemens Janzen

7

The Single Woman: Vocational (Dis)Advantage in God’s Mission Lauren England

10 Mutual Submission Frames the Household Codes Craig S. Keener

15 He Made Her Play the Harlot: Judges 19 through the Lens of Domestic Abuse

Evelyn Sweerts-Vermeulen

20 Selfless Marriage: Ephesians 5:21-33 a sermon by Chris Loewen

Book Reviews 25 Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church, by Diane Langberg Reviewed by Sue Bailey

26 Surprising Steps in the Right Direction: A Review of the 2020 Christian Standard Bible Reviewed by Jeff Miller

29 Imagining Equity: The Gifts of Christian Feminist Theology, by Karen Strand Winslow Reviewed by Jeff Miller

Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos more perfectly in the way of the Lord. (Acts 18:26)

I Tertius . . .

One of the stated purposes of Priscilla Papers is “to build a team of egalitarian scholars” (see https:// cbeinternational.org/content/priscilla-paperswriters-guidelines). The most obvious evidence of this team-building effort is that we have published the work of well over 500 authors since our

founding in 1987.

About half of these authors have one piece in Priscilla Papers, and to that list the current issue adds the names Sue Bailey, Lauren England, Shelley Siemens Janzen, Chris Loewen, and Evelyn SweertsVermeulen. Some authors have been frequent contributors, such as Gretchen Gaebelein Hull’s twelve items published before her death in 2019 (see Mimi Haddad’s tribute to her in our autumn 2019 issue), Kevin Giles’s sixteen items published from 2003 and 2021, and Aída Besançon Spencer’s twenty items from 1990–2019.

Preparing this issue of Priscilla Papers turned my mind to this “team of egalitarian scholars,” mainly for two reasons.

First, we are pleased to provide an article by Craig Keener on household codes in the New Testament. Craig published ten articles in Priscilla Papers in the 1990s. During and since that time, he has become a prolific author, with over a million of his more than thirty books in circulation.

Second, this issue includes a review of Karen Strand Winslow’s book, Imagining Equity. Karen serves on the Priscilla Papers Peer Review Team. As I wrote the review, I was reminded of the many recent publications by our several peer reviewers. Moreover, I was struck by how diverse and outstanding these publications are. Below is a partial and representative list: • Kat Armas, Abuelita Faith: What Women on the Margins Teach Us about Wisdom, Persistence, and Strength (Brazos, 2021).

• Joshua Barron, “My God is enkAi: A Reflection of Vernacular African Theology,” Journal of Language, Culture, and Religion 2/1 (2021) 1–20.

• Lynn Cohick, The Letter to the Ephesians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Eerdmans, 2020).

• Havilah Dharamraj, “The Curious Case of Hagar: Biblical Studies and the Interdisciplinary Approach of Comparative Literature,” Journal of Asian Evangelical Theology 23/2 (2019) 49–71.

• Nijay Gupta, “Reconstructing Junia's Imprisonment: Examining a Neglected Pauline Comment in Romans 16:7,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 47/4 (Winter 2020) 385–97.

• Loretta Hunnicutt, “Women, Race, and Unity in the StoneCampbell Movement,” in Slavery's Long Shadow: Race and Reconciliation in American Christianity, ed. James Gorman, Jeff Childers, and Mark Hamilton (Eerdmans, 2019) 133–52.

• Kyong-Jin Lee, “Nehemiah's Socioeconomic Reform: Principles and Accomplishments,” ch. 4 in Imagined Worlds and Constructed Differences in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Jeremiah W. Cataldo (T&T Clark, 2021).

• Esau McCaulley, Reading While Black: African American Biblical Interpretation as an Exercise in Hope (IVP Academic, 2020).

• Marion Ann Taylor, Ruth, Esther, The Story of God Bible Commentary (Zondervan Academic, 2021).

• Karen Strand Winslow, Daughters and Fathers in the Hebrew Bible (General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, The United Methodist Church, 2021).

Now it its thirty-fifth year, Priscilla Papers is committed to continue publishing high-quality scholarship and building “a team of egalitarian scholars.”

. . . greet you in the Lord.

DISCLAIMER: Final selection of all material published by CBE International in Priscilla Papers is entirely up to the discretion of the publisher, editor, and peer reviewers.

Please note that each author is solely legally responsible for the content and the accuracy of facts, citations, references, and quotations rendered and properly attributed in the article appearing under his or her name. Neither CBE, nor the editor, nor the editorial team is responsible or legally liable for any content or any statements made by any author, but the legal responsibility is solely that author’s once an article appears in print in Priscilla Papers.

Editor: Jeff Miller Associate Editor / Graphic Designer: Theresa Garbe President / Publisher: Mimi Haddad President Emerita: Catherine Clark Kroeger† Consulting Editor: William David Spencer Peer Review Team: Katrina Armas, Joshua Barron, Lynn H. Cohick, Havilah Dharamraj, Tim Foster, Nijay Gupta, Susan Howell, Jamin Hübner, Loretta Hunnicutt, Kyong-Jin Lee, Esau McCaulley, Adam Omelianchuk, Chuck Pitts, Marion Taylor, Karen Strand Winslow On the Cover: Phoebe Worrall Palmer, 1806767 NYPL Digital Gallery, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons Priscilla Papers is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database® (ATLA RDB®), http://www.atla.com, in the Christian Periodical Index (CPI), in New Testament Abstracts (NTA), and in Religious and Theological Abstracts (R&TA), as well as by CBE itself. Priscilla Papers is licensed with EBSCO’s fulltext informational library products. Full-text collections of Priscilla Papers are available through EBSCO Host’s Religion and Philosophy Collection, Galaxie Software’s Theological Journals collection, and Logos Bible Software. Priscilla Papers is a member publication of the American Association of Publishers.

2 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

Priscilla Papers (issn 0898–753x) is published quarterly by CBE International 122 W Franklin Avenue, Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55404–2451 www.cbeinternational.org | 612–872–6898 © CBE International, 2021.

cbeinternational.org

Phoebe Palmer: Fountainhead of Evangelical Egalitarianism in Canada Shelley Siemens Janzen

About noon, on the Lord’s day, she was called upon, without previous notice . . . to speak to a congregation of several thousands. Curiosity soon gave way to a higher and nobler feeling. Breathless attention was given. . . . Those in the rear of the congregation, placed their hands behind their ears, that not a word might be lost.1 Such was the description of Reverend W. Young of the Methodist Church following Phoebe Palmer’s first visit to Canada West in 1853.2 Despite Palmer’s American Methodist heritage, she precipitated the Third Great Awakening3 during her visit to Canada and became one of the founders of the Canadian Holiness Movement. Palmer also contributed to first wave feminism due to her influence on Canadian and global leaders of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). Although powerful movements and individuals worked to oppose the public activity of women in Canada’s history, Palmer emerged as a mainstream evangelical leader who successfully resisted these forces. While other evangelical egalitarian voices existed, Palmer was prominent due to her clear public presentation of egalitarian theology and her profound influence on the future of evangelical women as leaders in Canada. This brief article will not attempt a detailed discussion of Palmer’s Canadian activity.4 Instead, a review of her ministry in Ontario (focusing on her impact in Hamilton, Ontario), in Quebec, and in the Maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick provides significant evidence for her impact. Ultimately, Phoebe Palmer became a Canadian fountainhead of evangelical egalitarianism through both her theology and exemplary ministry.

Early Ministry Phoebe Worrall Palmer (1807 – 1874) was the fourth child of a devout Methodist family living in New York City. She married Dr. Walter Palmer in 1827 and they had six children, tragically losing two sons and a daughter as infants. In 1837, after ten years of diligently seeking the entire sanctification taught by John Wesley, Palmer joyfully described her experience of this “second work of grace” and began to exposit a “shorter way” to sanctification than the classic Wesleyan version. At this time, she also assumed leadership of her sister Sarah Lankford’s Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness, which became a magnet to as many as three hundred weekly attendees and, uniquely, allowed men to participate. Here Palmer spoke to a wide variety of laity, clergymen, and theologians. Eventually hundreds of similar meetings patterned after her Tuesday Meeting launched around the world.5 Palmer initiated a broader public ministry at this point, preaching to hundreds of thousands in North America and

cbeinternational.org

the British Isles at various camp meetings, churches, colleges, and revival services. Her humanitarian efforts included the establishment of the Five Points Mission in a New York slum and leadership in organizations to aid the homeless, orphans, and those in need of medical care. Palmer published nearly twenty books. Her multifaceted work as theologian, revivalist, feminist, and humanitarian developed further as she served as managing editor of the widely read Methodist Guide to Holiness, which achieved a circulation of up to 37,000 with Ontario as the leading region of subscribers.6

Missions to Canada Prior to Confederation in 1867, Palmer would have encountered a predominantly British and American evangelical Protestant population in Ontario, while Quebec largely consisted of Catholic settlers with a high commitment to papal authority.

The Maritime provinces were predominantly an amalgamation of Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists. Despite limitations on itinerant preachers from the United States following the 1812 victory of British Canadian forces over the United States, Canadian Protestants were generally regarded as balancing the more revolutionary and populist American expressions with the hierarchal orderliness of British denominations. Even so, for women in Victorian Canada, “though it was widely assumed that female piety was the mainstay of religion . . . women’s voices, unlike those of their menfolk, became largely muted in the official church.”7 A key development in Palmer’s career was her initiation of a long series of regular missions to Canada. As early as 1853, Palmer visited an evangelistic camp meeting at a farm in Nepanee, Ontario. This meeting was notable: The “Mayor of Kingston was powerfully blest, over five hundred professed conversion, and nearly as many obtained the full assurance of faith. . . . The Wesleyan Methodist Conference reported an addition of six thousand that year, – mostly from the region where the camp-meeting had been held.”8 This work anticipated Palmer’s subsequent visits, which included other destinations in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritime provinces. As she travelled through these areas, her reputation as a compelling and effective speaker spread. During the summer of 1857, Palmer “wrote of conversions by the hundreds and crowds of 5,000 – 6,000 at obscure camp meetings in Ontario and Quebec.”9 Ultimately, however, it was the spontaneous events that occurred in Hamilton, Ontario, in October of 1857 that led Palmer to label this year as her Annus Mirabilis or “year of wonders.”10 Following a large event in Oakville, Ontario, which she attended with her husband, unexpected issues with the Palmers’ baggage at a Hamilton train station obliged them to

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 3

stay overnight. The news of the Palmers’ presence prompted local Methodist ministers to convene a joint prayer meeting.

The surprising intensity of this meeting resulted in Palmer speaking with powerful results again the following evening. As news spread about a potential revival, meetings were scheduled from seven in the morning until ten at night, with the unusual characteristic of being led largely by a wide variety of laity and in the form of testimonies of salvation or declarations of complete commitment.11 Palmer stayed in Hamilton for a full eighteen days participating in these events, and the meetings continued for additional weeks after her departure. The result was approximately 600 professions of faith.12 Shortly after this revival, the New York Christian Advocate and Journal published the news as a prominent headline. Historians J. Edwin Orr and Richard Roberts emphasize that, There, upon the front page, hundreds of wistful Methodist ministers read that in a “Revival Extraordinary” in Hamilton: “Men of low degree and men of high estate for wealth and position; old men and maidens, and even little children, can be seen humbly kneeling together, pleading for grace. The mayor of the city, with other persons of like position, are not ashamed to be seen bowed at an altar of prayer beside the humble servant.”13 The leadership of a wide range of men, women, and even children professing faith and sharing their experiences during this revival was distinctively egalitarian. Palmer connected the spreading revival with the apostolic church in the book of Acts depicting men and women of the laity empowered to evangelize and grow the church. “Billed as a ‘Laity for the Times’ Palmer’s methods were congruent with the move towards lay ascendancy, when laity and ministers began more to resemble one another.”14 As the momentum of this lay revival grew and spread outside of Canada to the United States and Britain, some began to refer to these events as a new awakening. Intriguingly, for “the beginnings of the religious Revival which was soon to sweep the United States it is necessary to look beyond the borders of the Union. The first unusual stream of blessing arose, not in New York as commonly supposed, but in the city of Hamilton, in the province of Ontario.”15

Evangelical Fountainhead Palmer’s propensity for theological teaching revealed a thorough and integrated evangelical substance. Since newly settled regions of Canada lacked the apparatus that established religious, social, and political institutions provided, they were therefore widely receptive to Palmer’s evangelical theology, including its high expectations for personal and social ethics.16 Although the term “evangelical” can be ambiguous, the historical approach found in David Bebbington’s quadrilateral and in Palmer’s lived experience allows for a broad, yet more nuanced description of the evangelical movement in Canada.17 For example, Palmer’s theology can be readily identified in Bebbington’s four classic evangelical ideals.

4 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

Bebbington’s first ideal of conversionism recognizes individual sin and is reflected in Palmer’s emphasis on the need for personal redemption. In a historical context of Catholic and mainline Protestant hierarchy and intermediaries, Palmer’s conversionism highlighted individual responsibility and therefore offered an inherent empowerment to the laity.

Evangelical conversionism represented a significant departure from the inherited state/church model. Her “emphasis on the relationship between God and the believer implied a potentially radical, egalitarian challenge to the corporate church and its sacraments” and defied foundational political and social assumptions regarding God-ordained hierarchy and order.18 Palmer’s non-emotional and rational conversionism effectively connected with large numbers of Canadian individuals who attended her revival services.

A second ideal from Bebbington that emerged in Palmer’s evangelicalism was her biblicism. Palmer exhibited an intense regard for Scripture and believed that all spiritual truth was located in the Bible. Scripture was the ultimate authority, and evangelicals like Palmer turned to the Bible when resolving challenges such as human injustice, ecclesiology, or whether women may preach and teach. Palmer’s preaching integrated biblical themes, and her constant reference to Scripture lent timely authority to her words.

Thirdly, Palmer’s scriptural emphasis was substantiated with her teaching on Christ’s sacrifice and provision on the cross. Here Palmer clearly aligned herself with John Wesley’s classic view of salvation from sin by faith alone through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This crucicentrism contrasted with Catholic promotion of papal authority, sacraments, or other intermediary sources. Moreover, she corroborated Wesley’s Arminian soteriology of individual free will while affirming the necessity of prevenient grace. For both Wesley and Palmer, seeking sanctification in this life represented a vital second work of God’s grace. Palmer highlighted the power of the crucified Christ to sanctify a fully consecrated life through faith and the testimony of the believer. Palmer’s simple techniques, by which any Christian could gain holiness, were direct contributions to evangelical theology in general, and a theology of the cross in particular.19 Fourthly, the evangelical ideal of activism was visible to early Canadians in Palmer’s public preaching and humanitarian work. Palmer’s teaching at large camp meetings across the country consistently held in tension an evangelistic emphasis with a sanctified life of concern for one’s neighbor. Her emphasis on holy living lent support to the Canadian culture of volunteerism—namely, a free association of equal individuals working together toward the common good. Palmer’s evangelical ideal of activism integrated spiritual encounters in both personal and social contexts. She maintained that the very purposes of redemption are unrealized unless we are zealous for good works.20 Palmer’s activism supported local and crosscultural outreach including organizing a mission to reach New York’s population of 40,000 Jews in 1855 and also missionary

cbeinternational.org

agencies in Palestine and China.21 Palmer’s intentional activism is readily evident in the most cursory review of her lifetime of evangelistic and humanitarian efforts.

Egalitarian Fountainhead It should be evident already that Phoebe Palmer’s evangelical ideals were inseparable from her egalitarian theology and social activism. Mimi Haddad defines egalitarians as “Christians who affirm that scripture teaches the fundamental equality of men and women, both in being and service, so that gender is not a criterion by which to exclude women from public service or leadership.”22 As Palmer traveled Canada on various revival tours, her pragmatic evangelical theology was empowering to women who had felt their voices limited. The inherent levelling quality of Palmer’s evangelicalism weakened constraints on women “by elevating them in their own esteem and giving them the personal discipline to use their lives as best they could in Christian service.”23 Palmer’s visible and theological egalitarianism was the outcome of her considerable efforts to understand and apply biblical theology to contemporary concerns.

Immediately after her successful “year of wonders” in Canada, Palmer published The Promise of the Father in response to escalating criticism she was receiving as a female preacher.24 This manifesto was one of the earliest and most comprehensive works defending women’s mandate to public ministry and became foundational for women preachers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Palmer based this work of practical theology on the account of Pentecost in Acts 2, which celebrated the inauguration of God’s promise of egalitarian Christianity found in Joel 2:28. Rather than basing her feminism in a framework of women’s rights, “it was rooted . . . in a prophetic tradition of religious leadership where it was God’s call, not human customs or church traditions, that authorizes preaching.”25 The power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and in the last days was Palmer’s rationale for encouraging women’s authoritative speaking.

Since the gift of prophecy was recognized in individual women throughout the NT and into the third century, and given that preaching and prophecy were essentially synonymous in the early church, the church was in violation of God’s chosen form of communication by quenching or neglecting these activities.26 Moreover, addressing the presumed restriction of women’s gifting presented by 1 Cor 14:35 and 1 Tim 2:12, The Promise of the Father provided a thorough interpretation of these verses often isolated from the light of historical context and larger biblical themes. Palmer contended that the edification and growth of the church would suffer profoundly if God’s ministry through women was limited.

However, Palmer’s articulation of Wesleyan-Arminian holiness doctrine was arguably more influential for endorsing egalitarianism than her teaching on prophetic ministry. While she avoided Pelagianism by stressing that both initial conversion and subsequent sanctification were ultimately granted through God’s grace, Palmer exhorted traditionally passive or merely receptive Christians to become active participants and co-

cbeinternational.org

workers with God in their sanctification. The egalitarian implication was that Palmer empowered women to have a measure of involvement in, and even control over, their spiritual life. At this point, Palmer moved somewhat away from Wesley’s longer route to sanctification to advocating a more accessible and pragmatic “shorter way” to holiness.27 Palmer’s theological route included consecration of all aspects of one’s life on the altar of Christ, then faith that Christ sanctifies their gift, and lastly public testimony of being made new. For women, giving God foremost priority in life undermined the belief that they should devote themselves exclusively to their families. While family was recognized as a primary place of contribution, women were not ultimately limited to this domain, but rather were obligated to speak and work for Christ in the wider church and society.

Women were also empowered to recognize their own voices in response to Palmer’s requirement for public testimony. One’s old self was dead to sin, and the new self was empowered by the Holy Spirit to engage in private and public ministry. Palmer’s theology provided a basis for what was later identified as the evangelical feminism that authorized women to take initiative and exert influence in religious and spiritual spheres.28 It is intriguing that Palmer gave little attention to the topic of public recognition or ordination for women. While she supported women functioning in either state or ecclesiastical leadership as advantageous,29 Palmer refrained from endorsing ordination and instead argued that acquiring this title was inconsequential and diverged significantly from the NT model.

Rather than looking to the Methodist Church for certification, she had “the conviction that she was divinely commissioned and ordained by the great Head of the church for the special work which she felt impelled to do.”30

Conclusion Altogether, Phoebe Palmer became a source of evangelical egalitarianism in Canada through both her theology and exemplary ministry. Palmer has left a significant legacy of people influenced by her efforts, including Annie McClung, Frances Willard, Letitia Youmans, and Catherine Booth.31 As an eventual leader of the global Holiness Movement, Palmer’s public ministry was foundational for the development of North American feminism.32 Although evangelical and Canadian histories have tended to under-examine the contributions of women, an emphasis on the example of Phoebe Palmer readily offers a visible standard of Canadian evangelical emancipation.

Notes 1. Richard Wheatley, The Life and Letters of Mrs. Phoebe Palmer (W. C. Palmer Jr., 1876) 635.

2. Hereafter the pre-Confederation Province of Canada will be referred to as Ontario, Quebec, or Canada.

3. Cf. J. Edwin Orr, The Second Evangelical Awakening, abridged ed. (Enduring Word Media, 2018) 8–17. Discrepancy exists regarding the designation of this revival as the Third or the Second Great Awakening. Orr argues that, of the many North American revivals, only the Evangelical Revival of the eighteenth century and the Evangelical Awakening of the nineteenth century beginning in 1858

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 5

became world-wide in scope, and therefore places the beginnings of the Second Evangelical Awakening in Hamilton, Ontario.

4. In addition to resources cited elsewhere in these notes, see Sally Bruyneel, “Phoebe Palmer: Mother of the Holiness Movement,” Priscilla Papers 12/2 (Spring 1998) 1–3.

5. Donald M. Lewis, The Blackwell Dictionary of Evangelical Biography: 1730–1860, Blackwell Reference (Blackwell, 1995) 852.

6. Charles Edward White, The Beauty of Holiness: Phoebe Palmer as Theologian, Revivalist, Feminist and Humanitarian (Wipf & Stock, 2008) 92–93.

7. Nancy Christie, ed., Households of Faith: Family, Gender, and Community in Canada, 1760–1969 (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001) 238.

8. Wheatley, Life and Letters, 300.

9. Timothy Lawrence Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War, 1st Harper Torchbook ed. (Harper & Row, 1965) 67.

10. Wheatley, Life and Letters, 315.

11. J. Edwin Orr and Richard Owen Roberts, The Event of the Century: The 1857–1858 Awakening (International Awakening, 1989) 26–27.

12. Sandra L. King, The 1857 Hamilton Ontario Revival: An Exploration of the Origins of the Layman’s Revival and the Second Great Awakening, McMaster General Series (Pickwick, 2015) 73.

13. Orr and Roberts, The Event of the Century, 27.

14. George A. Rawlyk, Aspects of the Canadian Evangelical Experience, McGill-Queen’s Studies in the History of Religion (McGillQueen’s University Press, 1997) 83.

15. J. Edwin Orr, The Second Evangelical Awakening in Britain (Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1949) 14.

16. Michael Gauvreau, “Protestantism Transformed: Personal Piety and the Evangelical Social Vision, 1815–1867,” in The Canadian Protestant Experience, 1760 to 1990, ed. George A. Rawlyk (Welch, 1990) 50.

17. Mark A. Noll, David Bebbington, and George A. Rawlyk, Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles, and Beyond, 1700–1990, Religion in America Series (Oxford University Press, 1994) 180ff.

18. Gauvreau, The Canadian Protestant Experience, 57.

19. George M. Marsden, review of “Phoebe Palmer: Her Life and Thought,” by Harold B. Raser, The American Historical Review 93/5 (Dec 1, 1988) 1401.

20. Titus 2:14: “who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good” (NIV).

21. Wheatley, Life and Letters, 227–29.

22. Mimi Haddad, “Egalitarians: A New Path to Liberalism? Or Integral to Evangelical DNA?,” Priscilla Papers 29/1 (Winter 2015) 14, https://cbeinternational.org/resource/article/priscilla-papers-academicjournal/egalitarians-new-path-liberalism-or-integral.

23. Gauvreau, The Canadian Protestant Experience, 49.

24. See Martha Berg’s review of Palmer’s The Promise of the Father in Priscilla Papers 14/4 (Autumn 2000) 22.

25. Susan Hill Lindley, You Have Stept out of Your Place: A History of Women and Religion in America, 1st ed. (Westminster John Knox, 1996) 122.

26. Phoebe Palmer, The Promise of the Father: Or, A Neglected Speciality of the Last Days; Addressed to the Clergy and Laity of All Christian Communities (W. C. Palmer, 1859) 14–26.

27. Phoebe Palmer, The Way of Holiness: With Notes by the Way: Being a Narrative of Religious Experience Resulting from a Determination to Be a Bible Christian (1852) 1.

6 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

28. Elizabeth Gillan Muir and Marilyn Färdig Whiteley, Changing Roles of Women within the Christian Church in Canada (University of Toronto Press, 1995) 186.

29. Palmer, Promise of the Father, 1–5.

30. Palmer as cited by White, The Beauty of Holiness, 194.

31. See further: Mimi Haddad, review of Woman in the Pulpit, by Frances Willard, Priscilla Papers 15/1 (Winter 2001) 21–22; Haddad, “Egalitarian Pioneers: Betty Friedan or Catherine Booth?,” Priscilla Papers 20/4 (Autumn 2006) 53–59; Roger J. Green, “Catherine Booth, the Salvation Army, and the Purity Crusade of 1885,” Priscilla Papers 22/3 (Summer 2008) 9–18; Mary Agnes Maddox, “The Aggressive Christianity of Catherine Mumford Booth,” Priscilla Papers 22/3 (Summer 2008) 5–8.

32. Justo L. Gonzalez, Story of Christianity: Volume 1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, 2nd rev. ed. (HarperOne, 2010) 339.

SHELLEY SIEMENS JANZEN holds a Bachelor of Arts from Columbia Bible College and is currently completing a Master of Arts in Theological Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, BC, where she lives with her husband, Tony.

cbeinternational.org

The Single Woman: Vocational (Dis)Advantage in God’s Mission Lauren England

Women have always played an important part in God’s mission in the world. Indeed, unmarried women throughout history have defied cultural norms to be productive and effective in God’s mission in ways other than marriage and biological parenting. Often throughout history, singleness has been seen as a disqualifier to ministry and mission, for the partnership of a spouse meant you were a more valuable contributor.1 In light of these assumptions, it is important to highlight and discuss the necessary roles, challenges, and gifts that single women make in mission and ministry to further equip and support them.

The Only Way For women called to mission or ministry, singleness may not always be a choice, nor do all women feel comfortable to name it as a calling. Throughout history, and even today, breaking down traditional gender roles in the church and home is difficult, and, for some, singleness feels like the only way to fulfill their Godgiven calling. Lottie Moon, a prominent single female missionary in China in the 1800s, saw these barriers set up against single women being allowed to go to the mission field, particularly through a colleague of hers, Martha Crawford.2 Despite being called to the mission field individually, Martha was unable to be sent alone and instead became a solution to the problem of a young male missionary’s singleness.3 Her marriage removed agency and, instead of her concern being for the people to whom she was called, she was worried about outshining her husband.4 The gender roles of the time, and the limitations that children put on women, meant that marriage itself became a barrier for doing ministry for Martha, and this was key to Lottie’s decision not to marry.

Into the twentieth century, the barriers marriage created continued to be a major factor in the decision of singleness for women. Anne West, a prominent Bible translator in the 1960s, also felt that if she were to marry, her husband and family would be her priority, leading her to forsake mission work.5 In contemporary times, this tension is still an issue for many women who are called into mission. Tara Beth Leach, a prominent Christian author and leader, shares her experience of being a woman called to ministry and marriage in light of the still-common assumption that women are called to be a minister’s wife, rather than a minister.6 This expectation that women are to follow their husbands rather than fulfill their own vocations still makes it difficult for many single women who are called into ministry to find a marriage that centers mutual submission and self-sacrifice.

Finding a husband who does not give in to this stereotype, and is confident in who he and his wife are, is difficult.7 For some cultures, the idea of a man taking up the traditional domestic and parenting responsibilities is a perversion of nature. Sarah Heath, an author and pastor, talks about the difficulty of being single and dating as a female pastor. She has often found it so difficult that she has felt the need to apologize for her vocation.8 She explains that even in the twenty-first century, female pastors—single or

cbeinternational.org

married—come with barriers and stigmas that male pastors simply do not.9

Vocational Disadvantage Similarly, there are unique challenges for being a woman in ministry in the systems, structures, and culture of maledominated and married-centric workplaces. Throughout history, a married couple was considered more valuable to the ministry than a single person.10 However, in the twentieth century, and still today, women have outnumbered men on the mission field, and this is because of the presence of single women.11 Although there is an increase of female pastors throughout North America, it was difficult to find statistics specific to single women who are pastors;12 this limited research reveals a lack of value placed on single women in ministry and some of the challenges they face. Of the stories and experiences we know, there is a common theme: pastoral ministry is structured around the male pastor and his wife, who may or may not also participate in his ministry.13 Some would go as far to say that there is a discrimination issue in the church against single pastors, for many churches are explicitly looking for a “family man” or married couples to lead the church.14 “Discrimination,” to some, is too strong a word, as is apparently the case for a Southern Baptist Seminary president who instructs his students to expect challenges in ministry if they remain single and to ideally find a spouse.15 Evangelical culture has made it doubly difficult for single women to be pastors as they seek to overcome the barriers of not only their gender but also their marital status.16 Women have too often been seen as temptresses, a potential sin to avoid in ministry.17 This continues to be a barrier women have to overcome in mission and ministry, as they are seen as dangerous because they do not have a husband to keep them in line.18 Margaret Britton describes the particular issue of singleness as a “social disadvantage” in the world.19 For single women in ministry, they are experiencing a vocational disadvantage as the structures perpetuate a preferred married leadership.

The Challenge of Intimacy and Community Another common challenge for single women in ministry is their unique experience and expression of community, family, and intimacy. Aimee Semple McPherson, an (in)famous evangelist of the early twentieth century, reveals in her own life and stories the tension between desiring intimacy and relationship but also understanding the reality of her life as a single pastor. Aimee received a clear call from God when married to her second husband, who desired her to be a “normal housewife” who stayed at home and cared for children.20 Going against cultural and religious norms of the day, Aimee struggled to pursue her desire for a family and intimacy, while also remaining true to her calling from God. After another failed marriage, and one to come, she understood this struggle. This is a reality for many, as

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 7

single women find themselves between their expected place in the home, with children and a husband, and the unique relationships of being a pastor.21 It is difficult to find friendship and community and to experience the family of God when the church values only the traditional family.22 Nonetheless, the message put forth in the Gospels and the reality of the kingdom of God presents family in a different light— that it is the people of God, those submitted to Jesus, who make a family.23 The struggles of a single woman in ministry may stem from the church’s inability to pursue and find space for unmarried social and spiritual intimacy.24

Gifts to the Church For too long, women have been subject to a simplistic approach when it comes to their pursuit of a holy life. The examples provided of women throughout history and in Scripture should not be limited to those who were married. The centralization of single women in these spaces would not only show a greater diversity of experiences but also new insights and helpful stories for people pursuing the faith. Single women who are remembered and revered in Scripture should be highlighted, because they not only defy the barriers of society’s expectations of women, but also of the single life. To name but a few, in Exodus we see Shiphrah and Puah, the Hebrew midwives who were the start of the liberation from Egyptian slavery. They were mightily used by God to oppose the pharaoh’s genocide and were blessed because of their audacious faith.25 The account of Shiphrah and Puah ends, “And because the midwives respected God, God gave them households of their own” (Exod 1:21 CEB), implying that they were unmarried at the time when they saved Moses and many other Hebrew infants.

Deborah’s marital status is not certain, but she most certainly led with an autonomy and independence that was unique in the era of the judges.26 In the Gospels, we see the powerful example of Mary Magdalene, devoted to following Jesus, and the first person sent

by Jesus to report the resurrection. Regarding other single women throughout history, we see the accounts of their calling as humble examples of a “strong devotion to God.”27 Lottie Moon’s story attests to this devotion and the unique testament of God’s authority in the embodiment of her calling.

As Christina Hitchcock says, “Lottie was allowed on the mission field because of the authority of Christ. . . . Lottie’s singleness allowed for no other human explanation of her authority to proclaim the Gospel. Her work as a single woman testified to the authority of Christ in a way that the work of a married woman could not.”28 This truth remains today, as single women defy traditional expectations of womanhood by entering into ministry and mission, while also doing it on their own— identifying with the Apostle Paul (a single man himself), “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20a CEB).

Representation of Single People A 2017 census report in the United States showed that nearly forty-six percent of people over the age of eighteen were single.29 Representation and the modeling of singleness should thus be valued in churches and on the mission field.30 Single women in ministry and mission are an important gift to the body of Christ 8 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

and offer a unique perspective and example that others do not.

Dora Yu, for example, was influenced in her decision to remain single by those who had gone before her; she became an example to other women of the value and contribution of singleness to the work of the church.31 For much of Protestant history, those at the podium represented only half of the population of the church. However, the church needs people of color, minority groups, those with disabilities, women, and those who are single as leaders so that people can see themselves and their experiences in their leaders.32 As an example, single women can model the virtues of patience in seasons of waiting and long periods of chastity.33

Paul: Better to be Single For a woman to be single in the first century was to be a financial burden to the family and a failure to her duty.34 So these words from Paul would have been shocking to a first-century woman: “I’m telling those who are single and widows that it’s good for them to stay single like me” (1 Cor 7:8 CEB). Paul goes as far as to say that it is preferable to be single because, “A woman who isn’t married or who is a virgin is concerned about the Lord’s concerns so that she can be dedicated to God in both body and spirit” (1 Cor 7:34 CEB). Countless female missionaries could attest to this truth—for example, Dora Yu, who despite planning to marry, knew that the “undivided love” she needed would not be possible as a married woman.35

Recommendations To address the unique challenges of single women in ministry and leverage the gifts that they offer, the following are suggestions in working alongside and supporting single women in ministry and mission. As Tara Beth Leach says, “Emboldened women aren’t empowered because of their age, gender, marital status, or parenting status, but because of Spirit-filled and courageous co-laborers in Christ who open doors for, include, and come alongside of their sisters.”36 Thus it is not singleness per se that is the value; it is the individual called to ministry regardless of their marital status, which should not restrict females or males.

Intimacy For women who already face barriers in leadership and ministry because of their gender, to also live in the loneliness of singleness is a heavy burden to carry. Intentional, real spaces of connection and community are therefore vital and should be prioritized and implemented to ensure specific support for single women. A common assumption brought up by Mary Lederleitner is that all single women want to live with other single women. For some, this may be the case, but for others, their desire for intimacy may not extend to the need to live with another single person.37 We need to think outside of the box when it comes to the unique life of single women. Ultimately, inclusive, sacred spaces of relationship that allow for sharing of life, ministry, hopes, and disappointments are important.

Pursue and Lift Up the Representation of Single People Josh Beckett discusses the need for new stories to be told about single people and that representation in all aspects of church life

cbeinternational.org

is vital.38 In order to love celibacy, Josh says, we need to “see it as lovely.”39 Singleness therefore needs to be modeled in a way that builds into the next generation for its value and beauty.40 Simple shifts in the language used around singleness, a change from the emphasis on marriage, and not merely sermons on singleness, but sermons by unmarried preachers, are some positive steps to take.

For women, specifically, re-telling stories of passionate, capable, and called women, like the ones mentioned in this article, help reinforce the notion that their ideal vocation is not only to bear children and keep a happy husband, but to pursue God’s calling in many other ways.

The Pursuit of Egalitarianism The pursuit of mutuality is essential to support single women. As mentioned already, for some women in ministry and mission, singleness has been the only option for them in order to remain faithful to their calling. This pursuit should continue to reinforce the narrative that goes against expected traditional roles in the home and workplace when it comes to men and women. Men and women need to see, hear, and understand that that singleness is a dignified path, choice, or calling in a woman’s life, rather than merely a backup plan.

Conclusion I have claimed throughout this article that single women in ministry and mission experience unique challenges and at times discrimination. To counter the obstacles placed before them, we must remember that single women bring unique gifts to the body of Christ. They can be solid examples of holiness, calling, patience, and trust in God. Single women are necessary to the body of Christ to speak to other single women, but also for people to be told different stories about vocation that do not involve marriage or traditional families. It is in these sacred spaces that single women teach us important lessons and to these stories we must listen.

Notes 1. Dana L. Robert, American Women in Mission: A Social History of Their Thought and Practice (Mercer University Press, 1996).

2. Christina S. Hitchcock, The Significance of Singleness: A Theological Vision for the Future of the Church (Baker Academic, 2018) 67.

3. Hitchcock, Significance of Singleness, 67.

4. Hitchcock, Significance of Singleness, 68.

5. Kate Shellnut, “How Single Women Became an Unstoppable Force in Bible Translation,” Christianity Today (April 2017), https:// christianitytoday.com/women/2017/april/how-single-women-becameunstoppable-force-in-bible-translat.html.

6. Tara Beth Leach, Emboldened: A Vision for Empowering Women in Ministry (InterVarsity, 2017) 109.

7. Mary T. Lederleitner, Women in God’s Mission (InterVarsity, 2018) 152.

8. Sarah Heath, “Dating a Lady of the Clothe,” Sonderlust, Podcast Audio (Dec 14, 2017), https://sonderlustthepodcast.com/ podcast/2017/12/15/dating-a-lady-of-the-clothe.

9. Heath, “Dating a Lady of the Clothe.”

10. Andrea L. Arrington, “Making sense of Martha: Single Women and Mission Work,” Social Sciences and Missions 23 (2010).

11. Arrington, “Making Sense,” 278.

12. Barna Research, Number of Female Senior Pastors in Protestant Churches Doubles in Past Decade, 2019, https://barna.com/research/

cbeinternational.org

number-of-female-senior-pastors-in-protestant-churches-doubles-inpast-decade/#.Vc5b2lNVikp.

13. Stephanie Williams, “Single. Female. Pastor,” Mutuality 21/3 (Autumn 2014) 12-14.

14. Eric Eckholm, “Unmarried Pastor, Seeking a Job, Sees Bias,” NY Times (March 21, 2011). https://nytimes.com/2011/03/22/us/22pastor.html.

15. Eckholm, “Unmarried Pastor.”

16. Eckholm, “Unmarried Pastor.”

17. The “Billy Graham rule” has perpetuated this as many pastors and leaders have adopted the practice of never meeting with a female alone.

18. Lederleitner, Women in God’s Mission.

19. Margaret Britton, The Single Woman in the Family of God (Epworth, 1982) 4.

20. Edith L. Blumhofer, Aimee Semple McPherson: Everybody’s Sister (Eerdmans, 1993) 105.

21. Britton, The Single Woman, 26.

22. The “traditional family” being that of a mother, father, and children. Britton, The Single Woman, 45-46.

23. Matt 29:49-50 and 1 Pet 2:9-10 make an important point of this.

24. Dr. Joyce De Rosario, “Week 10 Lecture” (class lecture, Women in Mission, Fuller Theological Seminary, June 4, 2019).

25. Wilda C. Gafney, Womanist Midrash: A Reintroduction to the Women of the Torah and the Throne (Westminster John Knox, 2017) 89.

26. Deborah is described as the wife of Lappidoth or “woman of flames” (Judg 4:4). See also Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman’s Bible (Northeastern University Press, 1993) 18.

27. Arrington, “Making Sense,” 24.

28. Hitchcock, Significance of Singleness, 77.

29. “Unmarried and Single Americans Week” (Sept 17-23, 2017), https://census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/facts-forfeatures/2017/cb17-ff16.pdf.

30. Such representation and modeling would counter the traditionally perpetuated message that, for women, marriage is the ultimate vocation.

Britton, The Single Woman, 16.

31. Silas H. L. Wu, “Dora Yu: Foremost Female Evangelist in Twentieth-Century Chinese Revivalism,” in Gospel Bearers, Gender Barriers: Missionary Women in the Twentieth Century, ed. Dana Robert (Orbis, 2002) 89.

32. Leach, Emboldened, 123.

33. Leach, Emboldened, 123.

34. Dr. Joyce De Rosario, “Week 3 Lecture” (class lecture, Women in Mission, Fuller Theological Seminary, June 4, 2019).

35. Wu, “Dora Yu,” 89.

36. Leach, Emboldened, 126, cf. 217.

37. Lederleitner, Women in God’s Mission, 188.

38. Joshua Beckett, “Desire in Singleness: Ascetics and Eternity,” in Kutter Callaway, Breaking the Marriage Idol (InterVarsity, 2018) 201.

39. Beckett, “Desire in Singleness,” 201.

40. Britton, The Single Woman, 58.

LAUREN ENGLAND holds a Master of Arts in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. She is trained as a special education teacher and worked as a youth pastor for eight years, advocating for the role of women in church leadership, preaching, discipling and training young people, and working with refugees and migrants in her community. Lauren lives in Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia, where she works to build bridges between the church and local community.

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 9

Mutual Submission Frames the Household Codes Craig S. Keener

Half of a book I wrote in 1992 dealt with mutual submission in Ephesians’ household codes. More recently, a PhD student here at Asbury Theological Seminary, Murray Vasser, has defended an excellent dissertation arguing for mutual submission in Colossians,1 and I have discovered something related to the same mutuality pattern while writing a commentary on 1 Peter.2 Neither Colossians nor 1 Peter is as explicit as Eph 5:21–6:9, but the collocation of such passages, all among mid-first-century Christians (on my dating), suggests that early Christians were on the more progressive edge of gender relationships in their world. (My implied ethical subtext is that we should be also, within biblical constraints. But my focus in this article is the raw material that I believe leads to that conclusion.)

Scholars often note that Paul (or, on some other scholars’ view, one of Paul’s disciples) adapts the contemporary literary form of household codes, following even the overall structure in place since Aristotle.3 More surprising are the adaptations Paul makes. Such adaptations include addressing not only the male householder but also the wife, children, and slaves; instructions to the husband to love; and the grammatically clear linkage of submission with not only wives but all believers in 5:21–22. Paul also relativizes the slaveholder’s authority in 6:5–9.

Most significantly, Paul frames the household codes with mutual submission in 5:21 and 6:9. Although some ancient writers (such as Xenophon of Athens or Musonius Rufus, a first-century AD Stoic philosopher) were more “progressive” and interested in mutuality than were others, I know of no other household codes in antiquity that frame their discussion with mutual submission. This raises the questions of why Paul adopts the household-code framework to begin with, and why he adapts it in light of Christian teaching (stemming from Jesus) on servanthood. Similar adaptations appear in Colossians and 1 Peter, suggesting a dynamic in early Christianity that differs from most of its contemporaries.

Mutual Submission Frames Ephesians 5:21–6:94 The Slave Narratives are replete with sentiments from former slaves who loved Jesus but hated Paul, because slaveholders regularly quoted Eph 6:5: “Slaves, obey your masters.” What the slaveholders did not bother to quote was the context, which goes on to admonish, “Slaveholders, do the same things to slaves” (6:9). That is, if slaves have to obey their masters, masters also must obey their slaves.

Did anyone in the first century take Paul literally on that point? Probably not. But that does not change the fact that what he actually said expressed one of the most radically antislavery sentiments of his day. He was not talking about violently overthrowing the institution; even the failed slave revolts of his era had never attempted that. But he was talking ethics, and ethics that went beyond mere theory. Some early Stoic philosophers 10 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

had advocated human equality, but Stoics had backed off from this and Stoics who could afford it held slaves. Paul and Stoics concurred in principle: Paul affirmed that slaves and slaveholders share the same master in heaven (Eph 6:9). But Paul’s instruction, “Do the same things to them,” goes beyond theory to practice.

This is not an accident, a slip of Paul’s tongue or his scribe’s pen. Paul frames his entire section of household codes with mutual submission. What are household codes, you ask? In his work on governance, the Greek thinker Aristotle had a large section on family roles. In it, Aristotle instructed the male head of the household how to rule his wife, children, and slaves.

Subsequent thinkers adopted the same schema, often in the same sequence. Because Rome was suspicious that minority religious groups undermined these traditional values, such groups often labored to reaffirm their belief in such values.

Paul presents a series of household codes in the same sequence as Aristotle: the relation of the male head of the household (as it was assumed in his day) to wives, children, and slaves. Paul may be thinking like the member of a minority religious group—after all, he is writing from Roman custody, and probably in Rome (Eph 3:1, 4:1, 6:20).

Yet Paul changes the standard formula. Instead of addressing only slaveholding men, he also addresses the wives, children, and slaves, who probably comprised the majority of the church.

(In Paul’s urban congregations, the slaves would have been household slaves, who had more freedom and, frequently, more opportunities for manumission than other slaves. Nevertheless, they were still slaves.) Moreover, he never instructs the male householder to rule; instead, he is to love his wife, serving her by offering his life for her (5:25), to avoid provoking his children (6:4), and to treat slaves as fellow servants of God (6:9).

Most importantly, Paul frames his entire set of instructions (5:21–6:9) by enjoining mutual submission: submitting to one another (5:21) and doing the same things to them (6:9). This sets submission in a new context: the example and teaching of our Lord, who invited us all to serve one another (Mark 10:42–45; cf.

John 13:14–17, 34–35; Gal 5:13–14).

Some patriarchal husbands today quote Eph 5:22 (“Wives, submit to your husbands”) out of context, much the way slaveholders quoted Eph 6:5. But in Greek, there is no verb in 5:22; it simply says, “Wives, to your husbands. . . .” Of course, Paul is not saying, “Wives, just do to your husbands whatever you want.” Greek grammar presumes that we will carry over the verb from the preceding verse, and that verb is “submit.” But because the verb is carried over from 5:21, it cannot mean something different than it meant in 5:21. The wife’s submission is merely an example of mutual submission, as is the husband sacrificing his life for his wife.

Some object, “But submission is explicit only for the wife!” The command to love, however, is explicit only for the husband (5:25),

cbeinternational.org

yet we understand that all Christians should love each another (5:2). Likewise, all Christians should submit to one another (5:21).

Although Paul is not trying to cover every circumstance, he offers us a general principle for how we should live: looking out for one another’s interests, listening to one another, loving others more than ourselves. Such advice is in keeping with his explicit teaching elsewhere (e.g., Rom 12:10, 13:8–10, 15:2–3; 1 Cor 13:4–7; Gal 5:14, 6:2), including in the preceding context (Eph 4:32).

A few other thinkers in antiquity taught some sort of mutual submission; like Paul, they were among antiquity’s most progressive thinkers. Four or five centuries before Paul, Xenophon argued in Oeconomicus for partnership (koinōnia) between spouses (7.18, 30). Still, Xenophon did not envision complete mutuality; he contended that nature has suited wives’ bodies better for indoor work and husbands’ for work outdoors (7.22–23, 30). The husband has more courage (7.25), but both are equals in memory and self-control (7.26–27). The first-century Stoic thinker Musonius Rufus viewed women as equal to men in nature and virtues.5 Although he distinguished their roles,6 he also often disagreed with the restrictive roles to which his society had limited women.7 Yet none of these writers thought to frame household codes with explicit mutual submission, including even slaves and slaveholders.

More common was the model originally promulgated by Aristotle himself, simply telling the male householder how to rule his household;8 the male was by nature superior to and ruling over the female.9 Against Socrates, he doubted the animal analogy in arguing for gender equality; lower animals, Aristotle insisted, do not have households requiring careful management!10 Others appealed to nature to show that males were superior to females.11 Physical differences were used to justify divergent social treatment.12 Despite women’s considerable progress in Roman society, older Greek ideologies continued to influence elite thinking and writing.13 On one view, women exist only to make men miserable (Eurip. Or. 605–6); a misogynist might wish that women did not exist, apart from bearing children (Ps.-Lucian Affairs 38). One example of tactlessness is a guest denouncing women when invited to speak at a wedding (Theophr. Char. 12.6). Juvenal longs for the old days of cave-women, before adultery had been invented (Sat. 6.7–8).14 Because of their supposed immaturity, women were often linked with minors, slaves, and the like,15 not least insofar as Socrates or Thales was said to have praised fortune for not making him a woman, beast, or barbarian,16 a saying eventually adapted into a Jewish benediction as well.17 I will not even repeat some of the harsher views about women’s character here.

And while the Stoic Musonius held friendlier views toward women, not all Stoics agreed. His predecessor Seneca, a Roman contemporary of Paul, while allowing that women were capable of the same virtues as men,18 often portrayed women as unstable and irrational,19 and a later Stoic emperor could regard a man’s soul as different from a woman’s.20 In contrast to Epicureans and Pythagoreans, Stoics had few if any women pupils.21 The

cbeinternational.org

Stoic egalitarian trend moving beyond Aristotle’s chauvinism was not meant to disrupt the hierarchical roles already existing in society.22 Thus “Roman Stoics were egalitarian in theory but Aristotelian in practice.”23 While later rabbis were more diverse and nuanced in their views, some first-century Jewish writers in Greek mirrored classical Athenian prejudices more directly: Philo always portrays male as superior to female;24 he contends that masculinity is closer to divinity than femininity is.25 When he praises the empress Livia, he claims that her training made her virtually male in her intellect.26 Josephus claims that courts should not accept the testimony of women because of their instability.27 Commenting on the death of the Levite’s concubine, who was gang-raped in Judg 19:24–28, Josephus claims that she died from shame, doubting that her husband would forgive her!28 Josephus believes that men who heed the folly of women merit judgment,29 and cites approvingly the Essene suspicion of women’s infidelity.30 Aside from such ideology, some men were simply brutal: for example, to obey the priests and not be defiled, Sulla divorced his sick and dying wife and had her carried away while she lived.31 Plutarch reports that when Alcibiades’ good wife asked for a divorce, in response to his behavior with courtesans, he dragged her home forcibly; she died soon after, while he was away (Alc. 8.3– 4). This was not cruel, Plutarch explains, because the law requires the wife to go to court precisely so that, if the husband wants her, he may take her (8.5). Abuse was sometimes sanctioned,32 especially in earlier times,33 though even the “ancients” had their limits.34 Another man ordered his freedman to beat his eight-months pregnant wife; she died in childbirth, but he was not guilty because he grieved and was not seeking her death.35 A certain man who was found to have killed his wife by throwing her out the window after a struggle, however, did face death.36

Colossians Colossians 3:18–4:1 also follows the traditional Aristotelian outline, addressing wives, children, and slaves, while emphasizing mutual responsibilities of both. (For that matter, 1 Cor 7:1–5 also emphasizes mutual, and in that case the same, responsibilities of both husbands and wives.)

The more concise passage in Colossians begins more abruptly than its parallel unit in Ephesians. Whereas Eph 5:21’s functional imperative is really a subordinate participle dependent on the imperative, “Be filled with the Spirit” in 5:18, Col 3:18 has a genuine imperative, the connection of which to the invitations in 3:16–17 is less grammatically explicit: “Wives, submit to your husbands.” Each of the admonitions in 3:18–21 is stated concisely, like simple parenesis. They address in immediate succession wives, then husbands; and children, then fathers. The difference in admonitions to wives in 3:18 and to children and slaves in 3:20, 22 is nevertheless evident in the different choice of verbs: whereas wives submit (hupotassō), children and slaves obey (hupakouō).

Only the slave section is expanded beyond brief comment, which in turn allows fuller observation of Paul’s intention. As in Ephesians, slaves are called to obey masters not with the masters

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 11

themselves in mind, but for Christ (Col 3:22–25). More stark is the command to masters in Col 4:1, which, as in Eph 6:9, suggests mutual submission. Most translations say something like, “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven” (NRSV). But that is because Paul’s instructions here, if taken literally, sound too radical for a firstcentury setting. Literally, Paul says, grant them justice (dikaion) and equality (isotēta). Through a thorough lexical search of this language, Vasser has recently shown that isotēs normally means “equality,” especially in slavery contexts where it typically contrasts with slavery.37 That is, Paul’s admonition to slaveholders is on the most radical edge of ancient thinkers on the subject.

1 Peter In the context of his call for wives to submit (3:1), Peter explicitly addresses human institutions, such as kingship, slavery, and patriarchal marriage (2:13). Thus 1 Pet 2:13–14 states: “For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right” (NRSV).

Peter then addresses slaves in 2:18: “Household slaves, submit to masters with all respect.” So also wives in 1 Pet 3:1, which he introduces with the Greek term homoiōs (“likewise,” “in the same way”). And consider 5:5: “Likewise, you who are younger, submit to the elders.” Indeed, 5:5 follows an admonition to the elders not to lord it over the flock but to be examples to them (5:3), treating their overseeing role as a role for service (5:2).

While supporting submission to governing authorities, Peter does not fix for all cultures what such institutions must be or look like. This observation is implicitly recognized by all interpreters today who do not mandate monarchical government or slavery, although some prove inconsistent regarding authority structures in marriage.

Given cultural expectations, it is not surprising that Peter does not feel a need to repeat the term for submission (2:13, 18; 3:1) here in the instructions to husbands that also begin with homoiōs; but he does speak of showing the wife honor, just as believers must show to rulers and everyone else (2:17). The husband must thus respect his wife,38 who shares with him the same standing before God as an heir of resurrection life.

I believe that by “weaker vessel” (3:7) Peter refers to showing considerateness for the person in the socially weaker position, hence my translation “the more vulnerable member” (husbands were often more than a decade their wives’ senior). The socially weaker member was in greater need of mercy or attention (cf.

1 Cor 12:22).39 Whatever sphere of weakness is specifically in view, part of the point is that the husband should be sensitive to his wife (cf. Eph 5:25). This would not exclude the wife seeking to protect her husband when necessary and possible, but the assumption is presumably that the wife, being weaker in the sphere(s) in view, has need for her husband’s considerate attention.

Philosophers often affirmed women’s equality in principle, though apparently only Epicureans achieved this ideal in

12 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

practice.40 Socrates claimed that a woman’s nature was not inferior to a man’s (except in strength and intellect!);41 one Cynic writer more generally denied that women are worse by nature than men.42 Such “weakness” could mean vulnerability and might merit protection or invite sympathy.43

Conclusion The qualifications of ordinary household codes that appear in Colossians and 1 Peter make all the more likely that Paul did indeed want his hearers to take seriously his framing the Ephesian codes with mutual submission. Indeed, even as late as the letter of Clement of Rome to the Christians of Corinth (written toward the end of the first century), more than the usual emphasis on mutuality appears in such discussions.44 Yet applying Paul’s teaching on mutual submission literally would have been unheard of. That it was rarely attempted, however, does not make it any less significant. Even today, husbands and wives and people in other kinds of relationships often seek our own interests more than those of others (cf. Phil 2:4, 21). What would happen if we took Paul at his word? What may happen if we actually begin to put mutual submission into practice?45 Let’s try it and find out.

Notes I adapted this article from a paper I presented at the Society for Pentecostal Studies conference, March 19, 2021.

1. Murray Vasser, “Slaves in the Christian Household: The Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln in Context” (PhD diss., Asbury Theological Seminary, 2021).

2. Craig S. Keener, 1 Peter: A Commentary (Baker Academic, 2021).

3. See Arist. Pol. 1.2.1, 1253b; David L. Balch, “Household Codes,” in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament (Scholars, 1988) 27.

For Greek-speaking Jewish circles, see Josephus Apion 2.201–17; see esp.

Balch, “Household Codes,” 28–29; see also discussion in Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage & Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Baker Academic, 1992; new preface, 2004) ch. 4, where I include fuller documentation for this section.

4. Here I adapt my blog post from May 2016 (https://craigkeener. com/mutual-submission-ephesians-521/), emphasizing how 5:21 and 6:9 frame the Ephesian Haustafeln, while filling in information from my earlier book, Paul, Women & Wives, and some material from ch. 18 of my commentary, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 1 of 4 (Baker Academic, 2012).

5. On virtues being the same for both, see, e.g., “Musonius Rufus: The Roman Socrates,” trans. Cora E. Lutz, YCS 10 (1947) 4, p. 44.10–35; 4, p. 46.31–37; p. 48.1–26; see also Antisthenes (in Diogenes Laertius Lives 6.1.12); Pseudo-Crates Ep. 28; Seneca Y. Dial. 6.17.1; Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of Paul the Apostle, 2nd ed. (Yale University Press, 2003) 23 (noting also a book by Cleanthes in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.175).

6. For role distinctions in expressing virtue, see, e.g., Lutz, “Musonius Rufus,” 3, p. 40.25–28; cf. Seneca Y. Dial. 6.7.3.

7. He was not egalitarian by modern standards, but in another setting his understanding might have supported a more fully egalitarian direction.

8. See Beate Wagner-Hasel, BNP, “Roles: Greece,” 5:742 on Aristotle.

He denied that virtues were the same for both genders, though

cbeinternational.org

both genders could express virtue; thus, a man displays courage by commanding, and a woman by obeying (Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B. Fant, Women’s Life in Greece and Rome: A Source Book in Translation, 4th ed. [Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016] 64, §86).

Stoics would agree in principle with assigning virtue according to each entity’s appropriate nature (Lutz, “Musonius Rufus,” 4, p. 46, lines 3–4), though their conclusions differed from Aristotle’s.

9. Arist. Pol. 1.2.12, 1254b.

10. Arist. Pol. 2.2.15, 1264b. Aristotle did derive the husband-wife relationship from nature and instinct (Arist. N.E. 8.12.7, 1162a); virtues differed by gender (Arist. Pol. 3.2.10, 1277b). Some advocated marrying equals but intended this in terms of the same social class (Aesch. Prom.

901–2).

11. Aelian Nat. an. 11.26 (among his analogies is the dragon, fortunately not ants or bees). Xen. Oec. 7.33 uses the queen bee analogy for wives staying inside.

12. In Hippocratic writers, see Helen King, BNP, “Gender Roles: Medicine,” 5:745. Soranus, by contrast, avers that both have analogous characteristics despite differences in particulars (Gynec. 3. prol. 1–5; 3.12.45). For a survey of medical writers on women, see e.g., Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 85–97, 215–34.

13. Although I have drawn my examples from various periods, this remained true in much Roman literature of the early Empire, such as the portrayal of mothers (perhaps reacting against new freedoms); e.g., in Propertius, Ovid, and Statius. See Barbara K. Gold, “How Women (Re)Act in Roman Love Poetry: Inhuman She-Wolves and Unhelpful Mothers in Propertius’ Elegies,” Helios 33/2 (2006) 165–87; Donald Lateiner, “Procul este parentes: Mothers in Ovid’s Metamorphoses,” Helios 33/2 (2006) 189–201; Carole Newlands, “Mothers in Statius’s Poetry: Sorrows and Surrogates,” Helios 33/2 (2006) 203–26.

14. See Catherine Keane, “Juvenal’s Cave-Woman and the Programmatics of Satire,” Classical Bulletin 78/1 (2002) 5–20.

15. E.g., Cic. Off. 2.16.55–57; Ael. Arist. Def. Orat. 130, §41D; with barbarians and uneducated persons in Sen. Dial. 6.7.3; cf. Jewish laws in m. Suk. 2:8; Hag. 1:1; cf. especially Sipre Num. 39.6.1 (where women, proselytes and slaves do not belong to Israel proper).

16. Diog. Laert. 1.33. In Plato, see Michael Avi-Yonah, Hellenism and the East: Contacts and Interrelations from Alexander to the Roman Conquest (Hebrew University, 1978) 136; Richard N. Longenecker, New Testament Social Ethics for Today (Eerdmans, 1984) 70.

17. E.g., tos. Ber. 6:18; b. Men. 43b–44a, bar. “Gentile” naturally replaced “barbarian.” The saying is often noted (e.g., Wayne A. Meeks, “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity,” HR 13/3 [Feb 1974] 167–68; Joseph Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus Christ [Holt, Reinhart & Winston, 1964] 134; Eduard Lohse, The New Testament Environment, trans. John E. Steely [Abingdon, 1976] 150; Marcus Barth, Ephesians, AB 34 [Doubleday, 1974] 2:655–56), although the sentiment is gratitude for the privilege of observing more commandments, with Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (Crossroad, 1983) 217.

18. Sen. Dial. 6.16.1. Some of his portrayals of women’s virtue may be designed to support male virtues or challenge male vice (cf. Amanda Wilcox, “Exemplary Grief: Gender and Virtue in Seneca’s Consolations to Women,” Helios 33/1 [2006] 73–100).

19. See Gerald B. Lavery, “Never Seen in Public: Seneca and the Limits of Cosmopolitanism,” Latomus 56/1 (1997) 3–13; cf. J. N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, NovTSup 4 (Brill, 1961) 192–96; Sen. Dial. 6.7.3.

20. As that of children, tyrants, or animals also is (Marc. Aur. 5.11).

The image need not imply a universal; Xenophon thought that Greeks had better “souls,” i.e., were better equipped for battle, than Persians (Xen. Anab. 3.1.23). In the mid-second century BCE, Stoics had begun moving away from their earlier political egalitarianism (Andrew Erskine, The Hellenistic Stoa: Political Thought and Action [Cornell University Press, 1990] 181).

21. Meeks, Urban Christians, 23. (This claim involves disciples, not aristocratic girls in households where Stoics could be hired to teach.)

22. Wayne A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians, LEC 6 (Westminster, 1986) 60–61 (also noting that the Stoic emphasis on Stoic wisdom—which only the elite could afford to pay for—supported hierarchy of a different sort).

Join the Movement Make a statement about your commitment to women when your church or school joins CBE as a member. Visit cbe.today/orgmembers.

The fact that [our] seminary is an institutional member of CBE sends a signal to the larger community about how we view women, in particular, in the life of our family.

—Paul Chilcote, Ashland Seminary

cbeinternational.org

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 13

23. Balch, “Household Codes,” 31; see further David L. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter, SBLMS 26 (SBL, 1981) 143–49.

24. Sharon Lea Mattila, “Wisdom, Sense Perception, Nature, and Philo’s Gender Gradient,” HTR 89/2 (1996) 103–29. Philo may even adapt grammatical gender to raise male over female (Leslie Baynes, “Philo, Personification, and the Transformation of Grammatical Gender,” SPhiloA 14 [2002] 31–47); on his negative use of female terminology, see also Richard A. Baer Jr., Paul’s Use of the Categories Male and Female, ALGHJ 3 (Brill, 1970) 65–66. Male is more complete than and superior to female (Baer, Categories, 41, citing Spec. Laws 1.200–1); female is “an imperfect male” (Baer, Categories, 41, citing QE 1:7; QG 1:25); and nature places men before women (Spec. Laws 2.124).

25. Cf. Colleen Conway, “Gender and Divine Relativity in Philo of Alexandria,” JSJ 34/4 (2003) 471–91; Baer, Categories, 55–64.

26. Meeks, Urban Christians, 24, citing Philo Embassy 319–20; on females becoming more male, see Baer, Categories, 45–49, 69 (esp. 45).

Similarly, Seneca praises his mother for her manliness (Michael Grant, A Social History of Greece and Rome [Scribner’s, 1992] 34, citing Sen. Consol. 16), and Porphyry encourages his wife that she can be virtually male (Porph. Marc. 33.511–16). It is this line of tradition, rather than a Galilean Jesus, that is echoed in G. Thom. 114.

27. Jos. Ant. 4.219; in later rabbis, see Sipra VDDeho. pq. 7.45.1.1; Judith Romney Wegner, Chattel or Person?: The Status of Women in the Mishnah (Oxford University Press, 1992) 120–23 (esp. 122). Elsewhere in antiquity, see Justinian Inst. 2.10.6 (though contrast Gaius Inst. 2.105); Gottfried Schiemann, “Intestabilis,” BNP 6:875.

28. Jos. Ant. 5.146–47.

29. E.g., Jos. Ant. 18.252–55.

30. War 2.121.

31. Sulla 35.2; likewise, in 33.3, he ordered Pompey to divorce his wife and then gave him his daughter, already pregnant by another husband; she died in childbirth. In a fictitious work, one man, unwilling to accept the widow’s refusal of his pursuit, raped her (Alciph. Farm. 35 [Epiphyllis to Amaracinē], 3.37).

32. Not least by Zeus’ example with Hera, hanging her from Olympus (Apollod. Bib. 2.7.1). Augustine’s mother Monica told wives to endure such beatings with servility (Aug. Conf. 9.9); Quint. Curt. 8.8.3 portrays wives having to endure husbands’ beatings as a matter of course (set in Alexander’s day).

33. E.g., Val. Max. 6.3.9 (where a man cudgeled his wife to death for drinking wine). A tyrant like Periander (who allegedly killed his pregnant wife in anger, then slew his concubines for goading him on, Diog. Laert. 1.94) is exceptional, however; the context shows Periander ready to kill men no less cheaply. They also knew of the Indian custom of widow burning (Diod. Sic. 17.91.3; Cic. Tusc. 5.27.78).

34. In the myth in Apollod. Bib. 3.15.1, the Areopagus banished a man who accidentally killed his wife.

35. Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.555–56.

36. Tac. Ann. 4.22.

37. Vasser, “Slaves in the Christian Household.”

38. Here mutuality goes beyond even Eph 5:33. Kurt C. Schaefer, Husband, Wife, Father, Child, Master, Slave: Peter through Roman Eyes (Wipf & Stock, 2018) 125, views this instruction as reversing the expectations of Aristotelian codes. At the very least, it suggests mutuality (see Shively T. J. Smith, Strangers to Family: Diaspora and 1 Peter’s Invention of God’s Households [Baylor University Press, 2016] 79).

39. Ancient political theory often emphasized guarding “the interests of the weak” (Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric

14 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians, HUT [J. C. B. Mohr, 1991] 126–27); some other societies share this principle (John S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 2nd ed. [Heinemann, 1990] 277), though in practice power often grows selfish.

40. Meeks, “Image of the Androgyne,” 170–73 (esp. 170).

41. Xenophon Symp. 2.9, reporting Socrates’s view (if, as is likely, gnōmē involves intellect and not simply decisiveness).

42. Pseudo-Crates Ep. 28. Diogenes, though, treats women’s nature as inferior in some sense in the tradition in Diogenes Laertius Lives 6.2.65.

43. E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Rom. Ant. 8.24.4–5; Livy Hist.

34.7.14; Plutarch Rom. Q. 108, Mor. 289E; Quintilian Decl. 272.3–5, 9; 338.8; see note on court petitions above. In Greek mythology, cf.

Cornutus Greek Theology 32, §66.12–15; Mary R. Lefkowitz, Women in Greek Myth, 2nd ed. (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007) 134–35.

44. As I suggested in 1997: see Craig Keener, “Woman and Man,” 1205–15 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments, ed.

R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids (InterVarsity, 1997).

45. I am not referring to abusive relationships here. Also, there is much less mutual submission in the instruction to fathers: children do need guidance.

CRAIG S. KEENER holds a PhD in NT and Christian Origins from Duke University as well as MA and MDiv degrees from Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. He teaches biblical studies at Asbury Theological Seminary near Lexington, Kentucky.

Well over a million of his thirty-plus books are in circulation. His award-winning, popular-level IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (now in its second edition and available in several languages) has sold over half a million copies. He is ordained by the National Baptist Convention, an African-American denomination.

Craig is married to Médine Moussounga Keener, who holds a PhD from University of Paris 7. Craig and Médine work for ethnic reconciliation in the U.S. and Africa. Their story together is told in their book, Impossible Love: The True Story of an African Civil War, Miracles, and Hope Against All Odds (Chosen Books, 2016).

cbeinternational.org

He Made Her Play the Harlot: Judges 19 through the Lens of Domestic Abuse

by Evelyn Sweerts-Vermeulen

The story of the gang rape and murder of an unnamed woman in Judges 19 is one of the bleakest narratives of the OT. Although it is mostly avoided in churches, since it is in the Bible it is important to ask how it might be read as a vehicle for justice.1 Compounding the difficulties the text presents, certain key elements of the narrative are ambiguous—for example, what the woman’s status was and why precisely she left the Levite. A close exegetical analysis, brought into conversation with the domestic abuse cycle, makes the story internally coherent and resolves the textual difficulties. Furthermore, by drawing attention to this dynamic in the text, churches can be challenged to address these issues more openly. Doing so must be a priority, given the prevalence of abuse and the imperative of the gospel.

Seeing and Understanding Domestic Abuse In her seminal work, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives, Phyllis Trible says about Judges 19 that “to hear this story is to inhabit a world of unrelenting terror that refuses to let us pass by on the other side.”2 This indirect call from Trible not only to notice but to act when confronted with abuse cannot be made insistently enough. In our neighborhoods and churches people of every age, ethnicity, and socio-economic status are being hurt. Domestic abuse helplines in the USA receive more than 19,000 calls daily.3 More than twenty-three percent of women and almost fourteen percent of men have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner, which means a significant minority of people who have experienced or witnessed severe violence are present in most churches. Indeed, there will almost certainly be abusers lurking in the pews. Many more will have had exposure to (or committed) other types of abuse or “milder” violence (is there such a thing as mild physical violence, given its emotional effects?).4 Domestic abuse can take many forms. As well as physical violence, those victimized may be subjected to emotional, psychological, financial, and sexual abuse or, usually, some combination of these in a pattern of controlling, coercive, and threatening behaviors.5 Even love-bombing (lavish affection), while appearing kind, in the context of domestic abuse is manipulative and controlling.6 The research shows that ending the abusive relationship without adequate safeguards in place often leads to serious and even fatal violence.7 In such cases, the most dangerous time is after the escape.

Churches have been largely and shamefully silent on the issue of domestic abuse. A Lifeway poll found that forty-two percent of Protestant pastors rarely or never speak about domestic abuse, presumably in part because thirty percent believed it was not a problem in their congregations.8 The statistics above suggest that they are almost certainly mistaken. It is past time for the church to do the theological work, get educated about the facts and local

cbeinternational.org

sources of support, engage in educating others, speak out for justice, and offer safety to those who are hurting.

The theological work is vital, and it needs to consider not only those texts most often used to send victims back to their abusers (e.g., Eph 5:22 and 1 Pet 2–3) but also those which may shape the conversation in unseen ways.9 For example, Renita J. Weems broke new ground in her study of how depictions of Yahweh as an abusive husband in the prophetic literature may wrongly serve to legitimate human abuse.10 Reading the story of the Levite and his concubine through the lens of domestic abuse can be a refusal to remain complicit in the silencing and minimizing that surrounds the issue. Furthermore, just as feminist readings can sensitize us to other voices that are marginalized or silenced, so seeing domestic abuse in this text may open our eyes to violence elsewhere, both in the Bible and in the lives of our neighbors. Abuse can be challenged, and victims supported, only if it is first seen.

The Domestic Violence Cycle In 1979, psychologist Lenore Walker proposed a cyclical model for understanding domestic violence, which she developed from interviews with 1,500 battered women.11 In the first phase, tension builds, eventually leading to an incident of abuse. This is followed by reconciliation and then calm, together making a honeymoon phase. Gradually tensions increase again as the cycle repeats. This model has been critiqued for its emphasis on physical aggression, its neglect of the power and control aspects of domestic abuse, and its focus on male-on-female violence.12 While it may be an imperfect tool in victim support and criminal justice settings, it is nevertheless a helpful model for the story of the Levite and his concubine.13

Judges 19 Given its clear parallels with Gen 19, commentators have readily treated this story as one about hospitality. Frank M. Yamada has done literary analyses of the rape narratives of the OT. He argues that the meaning of the rape in Judges 19 “is structured through the two hospitality scenes.”14 His summary is typical: “Both . . . stories are more properly understood not as a condemnation against homoeroticism . . . but instead as a failure of hospitality.”15 Quite apart from the fact that the story can be about both hospitality and sexual relations, note that there is no mention of the victim in Yamada’s summary. The horrific gang rape of the woman readily becomes mere evidence in a discussion about hospitality.

The introduction to the book of Judges (1:1–3:6) tells first of social, then of religious fragmentation, and the epilogue (chs. 17– 21) does the reverse, giving an A B B' A' framing to the book.16 As a result, the story of the Levite and his concubine can best be understood in terms of social disintegration, of which both inhospitality and violence are aspects. The story “epitomizes the ultimate deterioration and betrayal of family relations—a moral bankruptcy the Bible chastises.”17 The story in Judges 19 may have

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 15

many lessons to impart and possible polemics to share concerning hospitality, the relative merits of Benjamin and Judah (and by extension Saul and David), and the familial, social, and religious disintegration of Israel. But, just as importantly, here is also a story of a woman who was abused and was fatally unable to find safety.

The Setting An overview of the context of the narrative will be helpful at this point. The narrator says that the story takes place when there was no king in Israel (Judg 19:1). This signals to the reader that moral chaos similar to the previous narrative can be expected, which was also framed by the indication of the absence of monarchy (Judg 17–18). Likewise, the immediate mention of Ephraim, Bethlehem, Judah, and a Levite, which have been shown in a negative light in the previous story, lets the reader know that more of the same is likely to follow.18 These narrative clues communicate that what follows serves as a terrible warning rather than a good example.

The story starts with an unnamed adult male Levite who lives in a remote part of Ephraim and takes a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah (19:1). No one in this story is given a name: protagonists are marked by their origins and locations, their relationships to one another, and by their explicit or implicit status. This lack of naming “illustrates the disintegration and dehumanization of society while it universalizes the characters in this sordid story.”19 Although this man is a Levite (of the tribe set aside by God to provide priests for the nation) nothing that follows relates to his status as a Levite. Set alongside the story before, perhaps it simply serves to illustrate how far the religious life of Israel had crumbled. The Levites were not given land but were allocated towns to live in and allotted pastureland (Josh 18:7, Josh 21). The fact that this Levite lives in a tent (Judg 19:9) in the far reaches of Ephraim (v. 1) and not in a Levite town may also signal cause for concern. Here is a male protagonist about whom the reader is invited to have doubts.

Furthermore, the writer raises questions in the mind of the reader that are never answered: Why did the Levite take a pilegesh (usually translated “concubine”) and what is that exactly? Whatever translation is chosen for pilegesh (e.g., “concubine,” “second wife”), current scholarship on the word has not conclusively answered the questions about her status, rights, or inheritance procedures.20 None of the references in the Bible define the status of a pilegesh, and their rights and those of their children vary from text to text.21 Based in part on family experience and her cultural context as a Zimbabwean-American, Christine Mafana offers the intriguing suggestion that the pilegesh was a wife of lower status for whom the bride price had not been paid.22 Why not marry the girl properly? Why did her father accept this lesser status for his daughter? Why did the Levite take a woman from so far away, or why did he move to be far away afterwards? What is clear is that this is not a desirable situation for her, as she was unlikely to have “the legal protection of a primary wife.”23 Although it is impossible to know the backstory, it seems the author intends to sow doubts in the minds of the readers. Right from the beginning the set-up is strange. The girl is in a dubious relationship with a questionable man, rendering her doubly vulnerable.

16 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

The Domestic Violence Cycle: Escalating Tension and Abuse The setting, then, includes a man about whom there is ambiguity and a female of uncertain status who is nevertheless in his power.

In the cycle of abuse the first two phases of escalating tensions and an incident of abuse are folded into v. 2a: “But his concubine became angry with him” (NRSV) or “But she was unfaithful to him” (NIV).24 These radically different translations reflect the two existing manuscript traditions. The Hebrew Masoretic Text uses zanah (“fornicate,” “play the harlot”) whereas the Greek Septuagint opts for “became angry.”25 Translation is interpretation, so the task in the face of significantly differing options is “to reconstruct what the text must mean.”26 The translation choice has a sharp edge here because it affects how the rest of the story is likely to be understood. To be sure, no one deserves to be gang raped, and rape is always sin, but the reader, or at least the reader imagined by the author, will hear the story differently if the concubine was sleeping with others before leaving the Levite. In his commentary on the book of Judges, Barry Webb rightly rejects any reading of “grim irony” where the woman who “played the harlot” winds up the “common property” of the men of Gibeah.27 There are good reasons for reading the story with the assumption of the woman’s innocence. First, the fact that she goes straight to her father’s house suggests no wrongdoing on her part, but rather simple escape from the Levite. It cannot have been easy, nor particularly safe, for a woman to travel on her own from the far side of Ephraim to Bethlehem, so there probably was some desperation driving her to undertake the journey. This hints at the presence of domestic abuse, or at the very least a situation sufficiently intolerable that the risk of traveling alone was worth taking. The second reason to believe her innocence is revealed through an analysis of the grammar of vv. 2–3. Pamela Tamarkind Reis has done a lexical and grammatical examination of Judges 19, which leads her to offer a plausible new reading for vv. 2–3, namely that the concubine had been prostituted for the Levite (i.e., he was her pimp), so she ran away, and he then tried to persuade her to take him back.28 To be pimped out is a horrifying form of abuse—domestic or otherwise—and, if this reading is right, the story is not only about one (gang) rape but also about many individual rapes. In this reading a man has charmed or otherwise won for himself a young woman, whom he then proceeds to abuse by selling her body to other men. In contemporary parlance this is sex trafficking. She has effectively been recruited, transported to the far reaches of Ephraim, and is now living as a sex slave. In response to this abuse, the woman makes her escape back to “her father’s house at Bethlehem in Judah” (v. 2).

The Domestic Violence Cycle: Reconciliation and Calm In the domestic violence cycle, the next step is reconciliation, and this is precisely what happens next in the narrative. The Levite eventually sets out after her with the intention to “speak tenderly to her” (v. 3, literally “speak to her heart”) and bring her back.

This suggests she was the injured party.29 “To speak tenderly” is exactly the kind of charm offensive that is to be expected in this phase of the cycle of abuse, when the abuser typically uses

cbeinternational.org

kindness, gifts, and loving gestures to win back the trust of the victim. The Levite’s delay was likely due to initially waiting for her to come back and then setting out after her when it was clear she was not going to return.30 As Reis says, “there is no illogic in supposing that a father would receive a wronged daughter and a husband would want to recover his meal ticket.”31 The next part of the story takes place in the father’s house.

The woman is pushed to the very edge of the narrative with all the described interaction taking place between the two men. The girl’s father offers aggressive hospitality. It is he who welcomes the Levite “with joy” (v. 3) and who makes him stay (v. 4). The reader is told neither what has passed between the father and daughter in the previous months nor what, if anything, passes between her and the Levite. The repetition of the “heart” language in vv.

5, 7, 8 and 9 (which is usually obscured in translation) echoes the Levite’s desire to “speak to her heart” and highlights that, as far as the reader can discern, he has not done so successfully. There is nothing in the text to suggest that “genuine reconciliation has taken place.”32 The text here demands an act of imagination on the part of the reader. If she did not tell her story, or was not believed, the father’s hospitality may be seen as compensation for the wrong he believes his daughter has done to the Levite. He is embarrassed and trying to make up for his daughter’s shortcomings. This may explain the hospitality, but not the pleading to stay because, in that case, he would presumably be delighted that the Levite was once again willing to take his daughter and urge them on their way. Note also that he does not take his daughter back to the Levite, although he had four months in which to do so. On the other hand, if the woman told her father what had happened, and if he believed his daughter, it may be that he wants to do what he can to protect her, but his hands are tied to some extent. In that case, the abundant hospitality and attempts to keep the Levite in his house may be read as both the desire to appease the Levite into better behavior and the only avenue for keeping his daughter with him in safety. It is thus fair to draw a tentative conclusion that the father recognized something was profoundly wrong but considered himself powerless to do anything meaningful or permanent about it.

The text supports this reading through the repetition of the word “father,” and particularly “girl’s father,” in this section (vv.

3–6, 8–9).33 The particular phrase used (“the father of the na’arah”) occurs only here and in Deut 22:15–16, 19, where it concerns the father of a married daughter whose virginity has been cast into doubt by her new husband, to whom responsibility for her had been transferred upon marriage. If it is slander, the father can present the evidence, thus defending his daughter. Recall Mafana’s suggestion that this pilegesh may be one for whom the bride price had not been paid. If that is correct, all parties would find themselves without legal clarity in a lawless land. Thus, the repeated use of the phrase shows the father’s powerlessness in a situation where responsibility for her has been transferred to the Levite. He is the girl’s father, but unlike the father in Deuteronomy he has no legal way to defend his daughter. Thus, it serves to emphasize his incapacity rather than his indifference.

cbeinternational.org

The way the nomenclature changes also speaks volumes. At no point in her father’s house is the woman called a pilegesh. Her father is referred to as the father-in-law and the Levite as the sonin-law. She is a na’arah, a “maiden” or “girl.”34 These changes are likely deliberate decisions highlighting the woman’s greater status and therefore relative safety in her father’s house. The use of “sonin-law” also reminds the reader of the obligations the Levite has towards her.

It is only in v. 9, the liminal moment between staying and leaving, that the text reverts to “the man with his concubine” followed immediately by “his father-in-law, the girl’s father.”

The language signals a change is coming. Where the “servant” is consistently a na’ar (“boy,” “lad,” “youth”), the woman is no longer a na’arah (“girl,” “maiden”). It appears as if the male protagonist with the upper hand in the story also regains control of the way the story is told. As the Levite wrests agency back from the father, the language reflects the Levite’s perspective on the relationships. The final attempt of the father to get them to stay reverts to his use of language but is to no avail. As the light fails and evening approaches, the language of security fades and that of vulnerability reappears.

The Domestic Violence Cycle: Escalating Tension The party leaves and manages to get as far as Gibeah by nightfall (v. 14). The next sequence has strong echoes of Lot and the angelic visitors of Gen 19, with the crucial and fatal difference that there the divine visitors save everyone from the mob. The absence of the divine in Gibeah results in the sacrifice of the woman. Social breakdown both causes and follows Israel’s unfaithfulness to the covenant with God, when “all the people did what was right in their own eyes”: This is the narrator’s final denunciation (Judg 21:25b).

When the travelers meet their eventual host in the town square—also an outsider from Ephraim—the Levite calls the woman ’amah (“maidservant”). Sarah uses the same word to describe Hagar when she wants her expelled, and it is also consistently used in the legal texts for female slaves (Gen 21:10; Exod 21:7, 20, 26–27). This appears to be demeaning, and it could be seen as a return to phase one of the cycle, escalating tension.

It seems that her status has sunk even lower than before and any rights she may have enjoyed as a pilegesh have been lost. She is entirely at the mercy of this Levite and how he presents her.

The Domestic Violence Cycle: Abuse As in Gen 19, men of the city surround the house, pound on the door and demand to have sex with the male guest. There is no ambiguity in the text about this; it is utterly condemned. The men are “a depraved lot” (Judg 19:22). The host begs the mob not to do this “scurrilous thing” (v. 23).35 The host offers these worthless men the two women in his house, his own virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine. He says the men can ’anah (“afflict,” “violate,” “rape”) the girls and “do what is good in their own eyes” (v. 24). The use of this refrain from Judges advertises the narrator’s condemnation.36 People doing what seems good in their own eyes, instead of what is right in God’s eyes, is a core problem in Israel at the time of Judges. There is a catastrophic failure of Torah obedience.

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 17

Realizing his host is not able to resolve the situation by reasoning with the men, the Levite takes charge by seizing his concubine and “putting her out to them” (v. 25). The Levite here fails utterly in his duties as a master (as he is called in v. 26 and as is implied by calling her ’amah), let alone as a husband (as he is considered in the girl’s father’s house). As indicated above, the most dangerous time for certain women who are subject to domestic abuse is right after they leave. That sad fact is reflected in this story. The unnamed woman left her abuser at risk to herself, tried to find shelter in her father’s house, but was returned to her abuser, who now exacts his revenge in a cruel move that demonstrates his utter disregard for her personhood. He sacrifices her to save himself.

The narrator does not mince words: they rape and abuse her all night and then send her away (Webb offers an evocative, “discarded her”37). The third-person plurals indicate gang rape.38 The repetition of the temporal phrases (v. 25c) emphasizes the length of time of the abuse.39 On the basis of the brevity of the description in v. 25b, Trible says the narrator is indifferent to the woman’s suffering.40 This seems unfair; as well as the wider context of the narrative, which consistently suggests sympathy for the woman, the brevity of the description suggests the brutality of the act (as Trible in fact argues in relation to v. 25a).41 Having been released, one imagines she drags her bruised, bleeding, and battered body to the house where she should have been able to sleep in safety—the house, as the narrator says, “where her master was” (v. 26). The language in this verse is revealing.

First, the man has become “her master,” a clear highlighting of the inequality of power in their relationship. Second, it is the first time she is called ’ishah (“woman”) rather than “concubine,” “servant,” or “girl.” However fragile, as a concubine or servant she was tied into a relationship with the Levite; as a girl she was her father’s daughter. Now she is an isolated woman: utterly abandoned and disconnected from all protective social bonds, physically and metaphorically outside the security of a home. Her hands on the threshold are a chilling sign that haunts the reader. After hours of abuse, she seeks the only safe place she can think of and almost makes it.

In the morning, the Levite gets up (v. 27). In contrast to the emphasis on getting up early at the father’s house (vv. 5, 8), the different phrasing suggests he may have had a more relaxing start to the day. The succession of verbs conveys the sense that he was merely getting on with things.42 It is not clear from the text whether he planned to look for the woman.43 His callous indifference is confirmed both by the sense of surprise in the text when he opens the doors to go and finds her on the doorstep (hinneh, “behold!”) and his pitiless command to her to get up because they are going.

When she does not answer he puts her on a donkey and brings her home (v. 28). Once there, he gets a knife, cuts her down to the bone into twelve pieces, and sends the body parts around Israel with a call to respond (vv. 29–30). There is double horror here. Instead of a proper burial, he desecrates her body. But more dreadful still, the text never states when she dies, leaving open the possibility that he cut her up when she was still alive (did she die on the long journey or start to recover from her ordeal?). It says, 18 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

after all, that he put her on a donkey, not that he put her body on a donkey. This ambiguity is deliberate and designed to add to the horror. The Levite is shown to be a man capable of personal physical violence by this act, whether violence to a corpse or a living person. In the following scene the reader learns he is also a manipulative liar, telling a twisted version of events designed to make him appear an innocent victim (Judg 20:4–5). These are traits typically seen in abusers, so a context of abuse is coherent with the facts as presented by the narrator.44

Beyond the Text Seeing the dynamics of domestic abuse in this text can helpfully put a range of related issues on the table for discussion. I offer here some ideas for further exploration. First, while the narrative most closely follows Walker’s domestic violence cycle, linking domestic violence with this ancient story opens the door to a much wider conversation about all forms of domestic abuse and the church’s role in supporting and protecting victims, while holding justice and mercy in tension in relation to perpetrators.

Second, although the precise status and power of this Levite is unclear, in general Levites enjoyed the special status that came with the responsibility for Israel’s corporate worship. In the current context of the #metoo movement and its challenge to sexual assault perpetrated by powerful men, the text can become a jumping off point for necessary conversations about power and authority, about its abuse in churches by (male) leaders, and what safeguards need to be put in place to prevent the power vested in religious leaders being abused in any way. Third, as indicated, the first part of the story of the Levite and the concubine echoes the dynamics of sex trafficking in recruitment and transportation.

Whether these contemporary understandings can be read back into the text with integrity is an open question, but to allow these hints in the text to stimulate discussion in the present can only be helpful. Finally, the sexual violence in this story can and should stimulate conversation about pornography, and whether the sexual violence there reflects inherent violence and misogyny, functioning in a permission-giving way, or whether it generates a violence that was not previously present. Perhaps the deepest questions of the human condition lie there, in what comes first: action or representation, whether evil is inherent, or merely imitated.45 Indeed, the book of Judges as a whole might be read as an extended meditation on the root of evil in disobedience to God, and humankind’s responsibility for choosing to “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with . . . God” (Mic 6:8).

Conclusion Reading the story of the Levite’s concubine through a lens of the cycle of domestic abuse makes sense of some of the superficially puzzling aspects of the narrative. It becomes clear why she left him, why he chased after her, why her father behaved the way he did, and adds depth to why he threw her to the mob. In key narrative moments the escalating tension, abuse, and reconciliation of the domestic violence cycle can be discerned. The value, however, of reading the story in this light is not only for its internal narratival coherence, but also because it becomes an avenue for bringing these issues out into the open in churches.

cbeinternational.org

The Bible aims to move its readers towards justice and mercy.46 When this story is read as an example of domestic abuse, there is hope that even a tale this unrelentingly horrific might move the church towards justice and mercy. The suffering can be redeemed, the woman’s life not given in vain, if it leads to a better response from churches to the issue of domestic abuse (and indeed human trafficking). Churches need to be, and be seen as, safe spaces for people being abused. The church cannot be trusted by those who are suffering to listen well until it has shown that it can speak well, addressing the issues in preaching and in the community.

After her one moment of agency, when she leaves the Levite, the concubine’s personhood is gradually deconstructed, from concubine to servant to isolated woman, until she is literally deconstructed with a knife. Remembering her can be a way of bearing witness and thus a positive resource in the face of domestic and other forms of violence.47 To read the story of the Levite’s concubine through a lens of domestic abuse can help us to see, to remember, and to give a voice to all those who have been so victimized.

Notes 1. No part of this story is included in the Revised Common Lectionary, for example.

2. Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Fortress, 1984) 65.

3. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), Domestic Violence (2020), https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/ domestic_violence-2020080709350855.pdf?1596811079991.

4. NCADV, Domestic Violence.

5. Natalie Collins, Out of Control: Couples, Conflict and the Capacity for Change (SPCK, 2019) 15.

6. Collins, Out of Control, 30-31.

7. Kevin Barry, “Domestic Violence: Perspectives on the Male Batterer,” Journal for Pastoral Counselling 38 (2003) 60.

8. Anon., “Intimate Dangers: Domestic Violence Is Pervasive but Hidden,” ChrCentury 131/2 (Oct 2014) 7.

9. Steven Tracy, “Domestic Violence in the Church and Redemptive Suffering in 1 Peter,” CTJ 41/2 (Nov 2006) 279-96 has a helpful analysis; Merle W. Longwood, “Theological and Ethical Reflections on Men and Violence: Toward a New Understanding of Masculinity,” Theology & Sexuality 13/1 (Sept 2006) 47–61, offers constructive avenues for theological exploration and action.

10. Renita J. Weems, Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets (Fortress, 1995).

11. Crystal Raypole, “Understanding the Cycle of Abuse,” https:// healthline.com/health/relationships/cycle-of-abuse; the original book is Lenore E. Walker, The Battered Woman (Harper & Row, 1979).

12. Raypole, “Understanding the Cycle of Abuse.”

13. For those interested in learning more about the dynamics of domestic abuse, the “Power and Control Wheel” is a helpful tool, offering a multifaceted understanding of intimate partner violence; see https://theduluthmodel.org/wheels/.

14. Frank M. Yamada, Configurations of Rape in the Hebrew Bible: A Literary Analysis of Three Rape Narratives, StBibLit 109 (Peter Lang, 2008) 70.

15. Frank M. Yamada, “Rape,” NIDOTTE 4:102.

16. Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges, NICOT (Eerdmans, 2012) 32.

17. Pamela Tamarkin Reis, “The Levite’s Concubine: New Light on a Dark Story,” SJOT 20/1 (2006) 146.

cbeinternational.org

18. Tammi J. Schneider, Judges, Berit Olam (Liturgical Press, 2000) 246.

19. Reis, “The Levite’s Concubine,” 146.

20. Schneider, Judges, 248.

21. Schneider, Judges, 248.

22. Christine Mafana, “Judges 19: The Story of the Unnamed Woman” (paper presented at RELS 2326 Women and the Bible in 2013, https://sites.stedwards.edu/pangaea/judges-19-the-story-of-theunnamed-woman/).

23. Chuck Pitts, “Judges 19 as a Paradigm for Understanding and Responding to Human Trafficking,” Priscilla Papers 29/4 (Autumn 2015) 3.

24. All quotations from Scripture are NRSV unless otherwise indicated.

25. Trent C. Butler summarises the linguistic debates: Butler, Judges, rev. ed., WBC 8 (Zondervan, 2014) 418.

26. Schneider, Judges, 249.

27. Webb, The Book of Judges, 456.

28. Reis, “The Levite’s Concubine,” 129.

29. Robert G. Boling, Judges, AB (Doubleday, 1975) 274.

30. Schneider, Judges, 253, proposes that the Levite waited four months to be sure she was not pregnant, which would imply there had been fornication. This interpretation is dubious; pregnancy could have been the result of promiscuity on the road or after she returned home, so waiting four months would have guaranteed nothing.

31. Reis, “The Levite’s Concubine,” 129.

32. Webb, The Book of Judges, 461.

33. Reis, “The Levite’s Concubine,” 133, argues unconvincingly that the constant repetition of “father” is meant to show his uselessness by reminding the reader of his relationship with and responsibilities towards her, in which duties he falls far short.

34. Boling, Judges, 274, argues that this change shows a redactor was using two different sources. Multiple sources and redactors, however, are not needed to explain this shift. Furthermore, a redactor is capable of making lexical changes to suit his ends.

35. Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, 3 vols. (Norton, 2019) 2:150.

36. Butler, Judges, 424.

37. Webb, The Book of Judges, 469.

38. Trible, Texts of Terror, 76.

39. Schneider, Judges, 262.

40. Trible, Texts of Terror, 76.

41. Trible, Texts of Terror, 76.

42. Schneider, Judges, 263.

43. Schneider, Judges, 263.

44. Collins, Out of Control, 15, 20.

45 Catherine Madsen, “Notes on God’s Violence,” Cross Currents 51/2 (Summer 2001) 230.

46. Madsen, “Notes on God’s Violence,” 231.

47. Paula M. Cooey, “Re-Membering the Body: A Theological Resource for Resisting Domestic Violence,” Theology & Sexuality 3 (Sept 1995) 27.

EVELYN SWEERTS-VERMEULEN holds MA degrees from the Universities of Bristol and Durham, UK, and is a priest in the Church of England. She has a particular interest in the Hebrew Bible and in biblical theology.

Currently living and serving in Luxembourg, Evelyn is married and has four school-age children.

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 19

Selfless Marriage: Ephesians 5:21-33 a sermon by Chris Loewen

Here is a question for you: What difference does Jesus make in your marriage? Have you ever noticed that many Christian marriages don’t look significantly different from those of unbelievers? Of course, some Christian marriages stand out as exceptions. But why are they only exceptions to the rule? Why does one marriage have obvious quality to it, while another doesn’t, when both marriages are between Christians? I’ve often pondered this and wondered how my marriage looks different from others.

Today we will learn from the Apostle Paul’s words about marriage in Eph 5:21–33. But first, I want to be very clear with those of you who have not married, or are divorced, or have lost a spouse: you do not reflect Christ any less than anyone else. Do not misunderstand me: we all equally reflect Christ as his image bearers. In fact, Paul describes both singleness and marriage as gifts. In some places he even considers singleness a higher calling!1 But here in Eph 5:21–33, Paul is talking specifically about marriage relationships, so that will be my focus this morning.

I will say right at the outset that there are different approaches to this text, and there are understandable reasons for most of those approaches. Embedded in this passage are several questions that deserve our attention. For example: What is submission? What about the head and the body? What is a savior? What is love?

Each of these questions will be addressed as we work through the passage.

Usually, we read this passage as a closed unit, as though Paul is switching to a brand-new and isolated idea, but that is a mistake. In fact, Paul is continuing what he began discussing back in v. 18. Starting in v. 18 (“Be filled with the Spirit . . .), we encounter a long run-on sentence that goes all the way to the end of v. 22. It is one continuous thought for Paul. In this long sentence, Paul is showing the Ephesian believers what it looks like for a community of believers to be filled with the Spirit. Paul lists four manifestations of what a Spirit-filled community looks like (vv. 19–21): first, speaking to each other with songs; next, singing to the Lord from your heart; third, always thanking God for everything. And the last one is the first verse in our passage:

5:21: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

What does it mean for us to submit to one another? That word “submission” is interesting; we don’t usually use it today—it’s somewhat archaic. We have to remember that, in Paul’s day, the Greeks and Romans had a strict hierarchy between men and women.2 The household was governed by the basic dichotomy of ruler vs. the ruled; husbands ruled over their wives and the wives submitted. Husbands often “held absolute and unquestioned authority,” and we can see the rhetoric in the ancient literature that the “household code” was focused “on the patriarch controlling his wife, children and slaves.”3 In these relationships, submission went in one direction, from wife to husband, and never the other way around.

20 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

Paul’s call for all of us to submit to one another would have struck any of the first hearers as strange. It was countercultural.4 Really?! We all, men and women, have to submit to each other?

The submission goes both ways? This idea goes against the very fabric of their society. This call for mutual submission is a scandalous statement—but it is grounded in what was accomplished in Christ. This is so important because everything we see in this passage is tightly bound to Christ and his love for the church.

But what does it mean to submit? It simply means to place yourself underneath another person—it is considering the needs of other people before you consider your own. It is when you say, “No, you go first,” and are willing to take second place.

Really, it isn’t any different from what the rest of Scripture has already said. Let us be clear, submission is not the same as obedience. Submissiveness is the same as selflessness. The opposite of submissiveness is selfishness.5 We all know selfishness is like poison to any relationship, especially in marriage. I think it is safe to say that most, perhaps all, marriage problems stem from selfishness of some kind. This is crucial to keep in mind.

5:22: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”

Because Paul has been writing this long run-on sentence, it is clear that v. 21 cannot be separated from v. 22; they are part of one continuous thought. Whatever submission means in this verse must be intimately tied together with the mutual submission in v.

21.6 Paul is connecting the actions that illustrate life in the Spirit among the community of believers to more specific instructions for the marriage relationship. One flows into the other. Life in the community cannot be separated from life in marriage. Paul is saying, in light of the mutual submission we are called to embody in the body of Christ, here is how it looks in your marriages and homes. We are moving from the general to the specific. This is such an important point! Marriage is a microcosm, a reflection of the bigger picture, it is a place where mutual submission can be manifested at a deep level.

What Paul does from this point is present a wife’s submission as the first example of what mutual submission looks like in the marriage—and later he will present a husband’s example of submission. The wife’s submission might look a certain way in a marriage, but it is the same responsibility she has to every other member in the community.7 Wives are not called to submit to husbands “any more than only some Christians should sing psalms and hymns or give thanks to God the Father.”8 In other words, the wife is not asked to do any more or less than what all believers are asked to do!

In the same way, the love that husbands are called to show their wives in 5:25 is not any different from what all believers are asked to do in 5:1–2. There Paul says, “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children, and walk in the way of love,

cbeinternational.org

just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” A mistake we sometimes make is reading this text as though it is teaching gender-specific roles in which wives have the sole responsibility to submit and husbands have the sole responsibility to love. One reason people make this mistake is that nowhere in the text are husbands explicitly called to submit to their wives. However, we should be careful with that assumption because the passage also does not explicitly call wives to love their husbands. Paul does not excuse wives from love any more than he excuses husbands from submission. Husbands and wives are both equally called “to act out in marriage the same type of self-sacrificing, respectful, submissive love they would in any and all relationships within the believing community.”9 So, here in v. 22 Paul tells the wife to submit to her husband “as to the Lord.” The submission she shows her husband is as valuable as if her submission is to the Lord. Her submission is an extension of her submission to Christ. You cannot submit to your spouse without submitting to Christ.

5:23: “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.”

Here is where things get interesting. “For the husband is the head of the wife. . . .” What is Paul saying? In our society and culture, the word “head” might make us think of a leader, a head coach or the head of a large company, someone who is in charge or in authority. We talk about one spouse “wearing the pants” in the home. But is that what “head” means? If we would read it with that kind of meaning, it would sound something like this: The husband is the head of the wife as Jeff Bezos is the head of Amazon—the company which he founded. He gets to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and to bark orders at anyone in his company.10 That might be the right meaning for “head” in our modern English language, but that is not what Paul meant and that is not the kind of “headship” he is thinking of. Our culture reads more into the word “head” than Scripture intends us to.

That is, we tend to read more into it than we read out of it.

There is so much we could say about this four-lettered-word “head,” but we don’t have the time to unpack everything about it this morning. It is a loaded word and the source of many debates.

Here’s a quick summary: Paul is thinking of the head, the part that sits on top of the body between the shoulders—literally the head. But he is treating it as a metaphor, and what he says right after is crucial for us to understand. He says that the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church.

Paul is tying this headship to the relationship between Christ and the church. It might appear to us that this is the proof that head means “authority over,” but that is not the point that Paul is making here. Paul’s point in this passage is not to define for us who is or who is not the leader in the marriage. Rather, he is illustrating unity and relationship.11 Paul goes on and explains how Christ is the head of the church in the next phrase: husbands are the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, “his body, of which he is the Savior.” This last phrase explains and defines what Paul means by headship.12 Headship is defined as saviorship—where Christ is the “one who saves,” a deliverer or redeemer.13 The Caesars

cbeinternational.org

of Rome were frequently exalted as “the savior.” We see this especially in the stories surrounding Caesar Augustus returning home from battle as victor and being celebrated as the “son of god—the savior of the world” who ended all wars and ushered in a new era of peace. Now what about Jesus? How did Christ come and function as the savior? It was not through military conquest, but by dying a shameful and agonizing death on a Roman cross.

Jesus is the true Son of God (4:13), the true savior of the world, and he ushered in true peace (2:14) by ultimately laying down his life in love for us.14 The role of a savior as Paul defines it, and as Jesus shows us, is not one of leadership or authority over, but of redemption and deliverance.15 Paul, in the earlier parts of Ephesians, describes Christ as the head of the body which he sustains and causes to grow (1:22–23, 4:15–16, see also Col 2:19).

Paul wants us to think of ourselves, the church, as being one with Christ just as the husband and wife are one.

Jesus Christ, who is the head of the church, laid down his life in extravagant love for the beloved church, which is his body. He came not to be served but to serve (Matt 20:28, Mark 10:43–45, Luke 22:27, John 13:13–17). Jesus did not come to condemn but to forgive—to save us. That is the beautiful gospel. What Paul is doing is redefining the head/body metaphor in light of Jesus.

This becomes much clearer in the next section of the passage! If Paul wanted to communicate Jesus as one in authority over the church, as a parallel to the marriage relationship, he would have used different language. He might have used language like Jesus as “Lord or master of the body” instead of “savior of the body.”

On this note, the only passage we have in the NT that talks about authority in the marriage—and there is only one—is 1 Cor 7:2–4. There Paul says something very different from what we might expect: But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

In other words: in the act of giving oneself in marriage, each partner “comes under the authority of the other.”16 Paul could not be more clear—he redefines what leadership looks like in marriage. His vision for marriage is a revolutionary one where each partner is bonded to the other in mutual love, submission, and authority—complete equality.17

5:24: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

Paul makes the summary claim that just as the church submits to Christ, wives are to submit to their husbands. What is interesting is that in these first four verses, vv. 21–24, Paul tells wives to “submit,” but he does not describe with much particularity what her submission looks like. He just says it and leaves it. Why is that?

The reason is that she knows full well what her submission looks like—it’s nothing new.18 Her submission was a given, and she has

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 21

been doing that her whole married life. However, when we look at how Paul speaks to the husbands, we will find that he does, in fact, call the husbands to submit to their wives. Husbandly submission was not a given in Paul’s context, so he has to explain what this looks like, and he does it in a practical and creative way.19

5:25: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

So, now in v. 25, Paul shifts his attention to the husbands.

Essentially the question behind this part of the text is: Alright men, now it’s your turn. What does this mutual submission look like for you as the husband?

Again, let’s keep in mind that Paul is still working under the assumption in v. 21 that submission is something that “every believer is obligated to extend to the other, out of reverence for Christ, as part of being filled with the Holy Spirit.”20 What is beautiful here is that Paul uses a word for love that would not have normally been used in such a way. The word he uses is agapē love, which is never used in any household codes outside the NT—to do so is exclusive to Paul. We might ask, why did Paul use this word and what was so significant about this choice of word? You know, Paul could have used eros love which would communicate sexual or romantic love, or he could have used philia love which is seen in friendships like brotherly or sisterly love, but he doesn’t use either of these. Instead, he uses agapē love, which is a very difficult kind of love. So what is agapē love?

Agapē love is Paul’s main word for selfless love—unconditional love. It can’t be earned, nor is it deserved. It is a love that is selfsacrificial and other-oriented: it turns the focus away from the self and onto the other. It is a love that seeks the other person’s good—it is a submissive love!21 This love is patterned after Jesus who selflessly laid down his life for us all. When we read in 1 John 4:7–8 that “God is love,” it really is saying “God is agapē.” It is who God is in his very nature.

But more specifically, Paul uses the image of crucifixion as the portrait of agapē love (e.g., Gal 2:19, Eph 5:2). This is important to recognize because Paul is challenging the cultural stereotypes of masculinity in his day. Stereotypes that say what defines you as a man is your ability to be in control, to lead with authority, and to be the embodiment of strength and power. The inability to do this was to be seen as shamefully less than male in the eyes of the community. So as Paul draws our attention to Jesus, we see him crucified and hanging naked on the cross. “Crucifixion . . . was one of the most shameful [ways to die] in Paul’s day” (see Heb 12:2); it “took away a man’s control of his situation, emasculating him.”22 On the cross, Jesus had no rights. He had no control over his situation. He died a criminal’s death. Jesus showed his agapē love by ultimately laying down all his rights in service to us as the church, and he calls husbands to embody the same kind of selfless love. Is that not amazing!

As I was pondering this it struck me how Jesus laid down his rights, and I had to wonder if Paul is also calling us men to lay down our intense desire to be in charge, to be in authority, to have the last word. How does the image of Jesus on the cross challenge our presuppositions and ideas of what it means to be a godly husband? What needs to change in order to reflect the same selfless 22 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

love that Jesus showed to us on the cross? As we will be able to see in the following five verses, the husband is shown exactly what this looks like in the marriage relationship.

5:26–27: “He did this: to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.”

In his selfless love for the church, he saved her, redeemed her, purified her, forgave her, and set her free. Did you notice anything unique about the list of activities that Paul mentions?

Let me highlight the words for you: cleansing, washing, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish. Later, in v. 29, he uses the words feeding and nourishing. What do these words remind you of? They might bring to mind “women’s work” in the household.

Jesus is the model for the husband, and we get the image of Jesus giving “his bride a bath and [taking] responsibility for providing bridal clothes that are treated for stains, laundered, and ironed” all of which are metaphors for sanctification.23 Isn’t that a wonderful image!

Why does Paul do this? Scholars have pointed out that in Paul’s culture there were explicit ideas and stereotypes about how men worked in the public sphere and women in the domestic sphere—far more so than we see in today’s culture.24 The wife’s responsibilities were “making clothing, washing and ironing, bathing children and men, providing and serving food, and last but not least, bearing and nurturing children. Most of [these roles] were comparable to slave’s work.”25 It’s no accident that Paul used these words. To be sure, the actions that Paul was calling men to would have come across as demeaning and condescending to the superior male in the relationship, but they are grounded in the example we see in Christ and what he does for his church which is his body.26 If doing “women’s work” is part of what it means to serve the other, then in a profound way, women lead the way in this by doing it routinely for their husbands. They are the shining example of what Paul is calling husbands to do. It is not that Paul is calling for a reversal of roles and responsibilities, but rather he is calling men to imitate Christ in his low status and servanthood—to lay down their male privilege in the home and meet their wives where they are and serve them. Essentially, Paul has told the husbands to get down on their knees and wash their wives’ feet, and much more.27 The vision Paul has for marriage is not one where the wife is now in control, but instead, it is one where the husband and wife “are servants of each other.”28

5:28–30: “In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body.”

“In this same way. . . .” In the same way that we have witnessed the selfless love of Christ, husbands are called to embody that same selfless love towards their wives. Furthermore, they are to selflessly love their wives as their own bodies. Paul is saying to the husband: the two of you are one body—she is not an object, she

cbeinternational.org

is you! If you love and cherish your wife, you are loving your own body. Essentially, Paul is saying, “the more you love and submit to your wife, the happier you and your marriage will be—she is a part of who you are!”29 My friends, this is the Golden Rule in marriage relationships. Matthew 7:12 says, “For in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .”

To hate one’s own body is the opposite of loving it and is not typically how we as human beings treat ourselves—it’s quite antihuman. Part of being human is taking care of ourselves. Paul then shows us what it looks like to love your own body, “which includes nourishing and cherishing it.”30 Just like the rest of the metaphors in our passage, this image is grounded in Christ and his relationship to the church. Jesus nourishes and cherishes his body—for we are one with him. We are all members of Christ’s body and we experience the fullness of him (1:22–23 & 4:15–16) as he cares for us as his own body.

5:31–32: “‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ [Gen 2:24]. This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.”

What Paul does here is reach back to early in Genesis (2:24) in order to show yet another layer to the oneness and unity between the husband and wife. Both the husband and wife leave their families of origin to join to each other to form a new family unit.

And here is where this passage reaches its climax.

Paul says, “This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.” The mystery Paul speaks of is in the unity of Christ and his church, which finds its meaning in the Genesis quotation. This quotation, through the lens of Jesus, echoes what God intended for his creation. Jesus left his place where he was at home and went searching for his bride.31 Here we might ask the question: Did Jesus submit to us as the church? If we believe that submission is placing oneself under another in service, then yes of course he submitted to us! Even in his life on earth, he came not to be served but to serve (Matt 20:24–28). He even put aside his authority as he knelt down and washed his disciples’ feet (John 13). But the greatest act of selfless submission he displayed toward the church is in how he laid down his life in love for us all.

Philippians 2:6–8 showcases this profound mystery: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!

Paul is pointing to this and saying, “THAT is what marriage is all about!” The responsibility for the husband echoes the selfless action of Jesus Christ, but much more than that, marriage is meant to be redemptive—it is meant to be a tangible image of Christ to the world. “Your love story exists to point people to the greatest love story ever told.”32 We need photographs and images to help us remember who Jesus is and what he did for us—and marriage is one of those profound images! Our marriages are

cbeinternational.org

portraits of God to the world. When people see the mutual selfless submission and love in our marriages, they can see Jesus and his scandalous love for them. Then Paul concludes the passage with this summary verse:

5:33: “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”

Here Paul concludes this section and brings it full circle. It is interesting that Paul does not repeat his call for wives to submit, nor does he speak of the husband as the head. He repeats the command for the husband to selflessly love his wife as he loves himself and he speaks of the wife’s respect for her husband, which is drawn from the call for all believers to submit to one another out of respect, out of reverence, for Christ. Is there something to be said about husbands needing to be respected and wives needing to be loved? Some might say it is hard for a husband to love and a wife to respect. In any case, both are extensions of the submissiveness that we are all called to live out. Both actions are two sides of the same coin—there is very little difference between the two.

Conclusion The application is very basic, and its message is so practical. When we look at the marriage between Christ and the church, the secret ingredient is selflessness—it is selfless love. In the same way, the key to healthy marriages is selfless submission. On the contrary, the poison that will kill our marriages is selfishness. Remember, the opposite of selfless submission is selfishness. It really is that simple, but that doesn’t mean it is easy. Selfishness is something married couples have to deal with continually. It is not always easy to put the other person first, and neither do we always want to. I would think that, for any marriage struggle, whether that be a misunderstanding, an argument, or disagreement, a time of unfaithfulness or rejection, we can find selfishness of some kind lying at the root, beneath the surface. A question I would have for all of us is, is there a selfishness within me that I need to repent of? Do I need to go down on my knees today and wash the feet of my beloved?

Jesus wants to meet us where we are and use our marriages to reflect himself to the world. That, my friends, is the difference Jesus makes in our marriages. May our marriages shine the light of Jesus in our communities. Amen.

Notes 1. See, for example, 1 Cor 7:7–8: “I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. ¶ 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.” Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations are from the NIV. 2. Lynn H. Cohick, The Letter to the Ephesians, NICNT (Eerdmans, 2020) 344.

3. Katia Adams, Equal: What the Bible Says about Women, Men, and Authority (David C Cook, 2019) 168.

4. Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Zondervan, 2009) 279.

5. Adapted from a sermon by Bill Whitt, “No, You First!: The Difference Jesus Makes in Your Marriage,” preached Oct 14, 2018, at

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 23

Sunlight Community Church in Port St. Lucie, Florida, https://youtube.

18. Lucy Peppiatt, Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women: Fresh com/watch?v=QXZzct7bTWA. Perspectives on Disputed Texts (InterVarsity, 2019) 93.

6. Nicholas Rudolph Quient, The Perfection of our Faithful Wills (Wipf 19. Quient, Perfection of Our Faithful Wills, 77. Paul spends far more & Stock, 2019) 76. This is also true because in the earliest manuscripts time talking about the husband’s responsibility than he does the wife’s (9 and in the most widely used editions of the Greek NT (NA28, UBS5, to 3 ratio).

SBLGNT), there is no verb “submit” in v. 22; it must be inferred from 20. Cohick, Letter to the Ephesians, 359. “submitting to one another” in v. 21.

21. Whitt, “No, You First!”

7. William G. Witt, Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology 22. Cohick, Letter to the Ephesians, 361. for Women’s Ordination (Baylor University Press, 2020) 109.

23. Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s 8. Witt, Icons of Christ, 109.

Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Baker Academic, 2016) 165.

9. Michael Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of 24. Westfall, Paul and Gender, 22–23. the Cross (Eerdmans 2001) 265. Each of the verbs used to describe these 25. Westfall, Paul and Gender, 22–23. responsibilities—“submit” (vv. 22, 24), “respect” (v. 33) and “love” (vv.

26. Cohick, Letter to the Ephesians, 363.

25, 28, 33)—is drawn from the general responsibilities expected of all 27. Westfall, Paul and Gender, 166. believers stated in 5:2 and 5:21.

28. Westfall, Paul and Gender, 166.

10. Whitt, “No, You First!”

29. Whitt, “No, You First!”

11. See Christy Hemphill, “Kephalē is a Body Part: Unified 30. Cohick, Letter to the Ephesians, 368.

Interdependence in Relationship in Ephesians 5,” Priscilla Papers 35/2 31. N. T. Wright, Paul: The Prison Letters for Everyone: Ephesians, (Spring 2021) 3–9.

Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon (WJK, 2004) 68.

12. Payne, Man and Woman, 283–90. The clause “of which he is the 32. Whitt, “No, You First!”

Savior” is appositional (epexegetical), explaining what Paul meant by “head.”

13. L&N 1:21.22 & 21.31; BDAG 800–801.

CHRIS LOEWEN is pursuing an MDiv from 14. NIDNTTE 4:432.

Providence Theological Seminary. He lives with 15. Cohick, Letter to the Ephesians, 355. his wife, Diane, and their three young children in 16. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, rev.

Blumenort, Manitoba, where he ministers at Crossview ed. (Eerdmans, 2014) 311.

Kate Coleman 17. Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, IBC (WJK, 1997) 131.

See also, Founding director ofChurch. This sermon was first preached in Blumenort Andrew Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Next Leadership Community Church in the spring of 2021 (see https://www.youtube.

Texts (InterVarsity, 2019) 17–30. com/watch?v=QhVRcISf2Xo&t=910s.)

Elevating women’s equality in church and Christian NGO work.

Communities flourish when women’s equality is a priority. Yet women are not free to lead in many churches and Christian organizations. Join us online as we explore theological and practical tools for advancing women’s leadership in faith-based NGO’s and non-profits, in churches and seminaries, and in our daily lives.

Find more details at cbe.today/2021conf

24 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

cbeinternational.org

cbeinternational.org

Book Review

Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church

by Diane Langberg (Brazos, 2020) Reviewed by Sue Bailey

Diane Langberg’s newest book, Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church, is an important, emotionally challenging, and convicting read. The book focuses on the dynamics of power—the good, the bad, and the ugly. Although power is “inherent in being human,” given by God so that male and female in union could rule and subdue the earth and “not each other,” its abuse has “produced outcomes that have rolled down from generation to generation, infecting us all” (7).

Langberg expounds on the concept of power in three distinct but interconnected sections: Power Defined, Power Abused, and Power Redeemed.

In the first section, Langberg describes the many types of power, yet clarifies that all power is from God and given to humans as a trust. Power is always to be expressed in humility in order to bless and serve; it is not to be exploited to dominate, harm, and hurt. While this is the ideal, Langberg affirms that humanity is easily deceived and that it is this deception of power that leads to and perpetuates abuse. The author nuances how people rationalize the misuse of power to justify sinful actions.

Her chapter on the Power in Human Systems is especially enlightening. In it she examines how “systemic abuse occurs when a system, such as a family, a government entity, a school, a church or religious organization, a political group, or a social service organization enables the abuse of the people it purports to protect” in order to protect the system rather than persons (75). Her challenge to not be “anesthetized by so-called good systems, controlled by bad ones, or complicit by a deliberately chosen blindness” (89) is balm for the soul to those who have been victimized by abusive power.

While Langberg consistently contrasts Jesus’s expression of power in word and deed with sinful humanity’s exploitation of power, the chapter on Power between Men and Women is especially relevant and poignant. In it the author weaves together her personal story of growing up suppressed by the church with many of her clients’ (mostly women) stories of abuse and trauma.

She concludes that “abuse of power is a cancer in the body of Christ” (93) and is fed or perpetuated by a worldly standard of masculinity and an unbiblical concept of male headship. Both of these skewed perspectives contradict God’s original design of shared stewardship and power and instead baptize male rule over women. Langberg believes the solution is to restore the governance of God and,

In succeeding chapters Langberg discusses the concepts of race and power, generational trauma, and spiritual abuse. Her charge is deep and wide. In the last section the author gives hope and explains that the way forward is through the Redemptive Power and the Person of Christ. Her prophetic voice to the church is that in these troubling times, and “through those we have mistreated, he is turning on his light, exposing us to ourselves (and others), pointing out the cancer, and calling us to fidelity to him alone” (190).

The question remains, will the church allow the light to purify or will it continue to misconstrue and wrongly define biblical power and (mis)use it for personal and worldly gain?

Langberg does not accuse, instead she boldly invites the reader to consider redefining power.

My advice: Buy this book. Read it slowly. Chew on its words.

Digest its content. Let its truths tutor your mind, penetrate your soul, and motivate you toward embracing, modeling, and conveying a more humble, Christlike expression of power.

REV. DR. SUE BAILEY is a graduate of the University of Michigan and of Denver Seminary where she received an MDiv in 2010 and a DMin in 2021. After being ordained as a Teacher Elder/ Pastor with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church she served the local church. Later, she felt called to use her gifts of exhortation through creative enterprises under the initiative of Sue Bailey Ministries, LLC. Her passion for Christ and her desire to encourage and promote all believers to use their God-given gifts toward kingdom-building is further realized in her affiliation with CBE International. For the last five years, Sue has served as Director of the CBE Denver Chapter.

Sue uses her voice to promote mutuality/gender equality across racial, ethnic, and gender lines by raising awareness about mutuality and inviting those with divergent views to gather, talk about their differences, and reason together through “dignified dialogue.”

Sue and her supportive husband, Dr. Brent Bailey, live in Littleton, Colorado, where they remain committed to and involved in ministries both in the US and abroad.

fight against the devastating, divisive, and destructive outcomes of a division of labor God did not ordain and work to restore God’s governance over male/female relationships, which ought to be the place of greatest beauty in displaying the image of our God. (103)

cbeinternational.org

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 25

Book Review

Surprising Steps in the Right Direction: A Review of the 2020 Christian Standard Bible Reviewed by Jeff Miller

In 2017, Priscilla Papers reviewed the Christian Standard Bible (CSB), which is a revision of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). The review concluded: The CSB makes some improvements over its ancestor, the HCSB . . . in its translation of gender language.

In contrast, the various texts which tend to form and bolster a person’s view of women in Christian leadership tend strongly toward complementarian views.1 Holman Bible Publishers, affiliated with Lifeway Christian Resources and with the Southern Baptist Convention, published the HCSB and, in 2017, the CSB. The CSB was itself revised in 2020. This article is a review of that 2020 revision.

I will focus on certain aspects of the 2020 CSB relevant to the nature and mission of Priscilla Papers. A fuller review could address various other considerations, such as its manuscript base, translation philosophy, and English style. Specifically, this review will point out a significant weakness as well as a surprising strength of the 2020 CSB.

A Significant Weakness As stated above: In the CSB, “various texts which tend to form and bolster a person’s view of women in Christian leadership tend strongly toward complementarian views.” That 2017 review quoted twelve test-cases from the CSB; each of these remains unchanged in the 2020 revision.2 These twelve, and others as well, tend to facilitate complementarian interpretation. Consider these five examples: The CSB describes Andronicus and Junia as “noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles”3 instead of “outstanding among the apostles” in Rom 16:7.

The CSB inverts the meaning of 1 Cor 11:16 by translating “such” with its opposite, “other”: “If anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.” The CSB combines 1 Cor 14:33b and 34 into one sentence: “As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should be silent in the churches. . . .”

The CSB has a subheading between Eph 5:21 and 22, separating all Christians’ mutual submission in verse 21 from wives’ marital submission in verse 22.

The CSB uses “have authority” in 1 Tim 2:12. Compare this with more accurate translations such as “usurp authority” (KJV), “rule” (YLT), “instigate conflict” (ISV), “assume authority” (NIV), and “control” (CEB).

To be clear, the CSB translates a few texts in ways that, in my opinion, leave the door open to egalitarian interpretations better 26 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

than certain other translations do. In 1 Cor 14, for example, I consider it essential to translate Paul’s instructions to tongue speakers, prophets, and “the women” in the same way, so that English readers may discern the passage’s structure and see that Paul’s basic instruction to each of these groups is the same.

I appreciate, therefore, that the CSB has “silent” in vv. 28, 30, and 34. Though I would prefer “quiet” over “silent,” my point is that these three occurrences of the same Greek word should remain the same in translation. Contrast the NIV, in which the tongue speakers are to “keep quiet,” the prophets “should stop,” but “women” (better translated, “the women”) are given the significantly stronger instruction to “remain silent.”

Translation vs. Interpretation Nevertheless, the CSB does tend to facilitate complementarian views. In certain places, in fact, its 2020 revision misses opportunities to update their translation in the direction of scholarly consensus. I am not referring to interpretations on which complementarian and egalitarian interpreters continue to disagree. Instead, I am referring to matters of translation (as opposed to interpretation or theology) where a variety of scholars have moved toward a consensus.

A key example is the insertion of “a symbol of ” into 1 Cor 11:10, where the HCSB, 2017 CSB, and 2020 CSB all read, “This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head. . . .”

The KJV’s treatment of 1 Cor 11:10 provides an excellent example of the distinction between translation and interpretation. It reads, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head. . . .” The 1611 KJV also linked the word “power” to a note in the margin: “This is a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband.” The KJV translators had an interpretation—the same one that many complementarians have today—but they did not insert their interpretation into the biblical text itself.

Egalitarian champions, such as F. F. Bruce a generation ago and Katharine Bushnell a century ago, have long argued against the addition of “a symbol/sign of.”4 Such champions are still among us,5 but I am referring to the acceptance of this view by a growing variety of scholars.6 Is there unanimity among scholars?

No. But is there consensus significant to influence translation in the direction of what the text unquestionably says? Yes! The CSB gives no indication, either in its text (by italics or brackets, for example) or in a footnote, that “a symbol of” is an addition, though it has indeed been added without support from any Greek (or Latin, Syriac, Coptic, etc.) manuscript.

Brackets or Italics?

Translations that include “a symbol/sign of ” in brackets or italics include the ASV, all editions of the NASB, the Lexham English

cbeinternational.org

Bible, and the Legacy Standard Bible. A commentator who does the same is Paul Gardner, who holds a complementarian view of 1 Cor 11. His translation adds “a symbol of,” but it does so in brackets.7 The brackets, of course, indicate to the reader that the words have been added—something the CSB does not do.

is a more optimistic way to look at these numbers. Arranged chronologically, and only considering Bibles that are widely used and not known for a commitment to gender-accurate translation tactics, a downward trend appears: The table below shows a downward trend in the number of times that “man/men” has been inserted into English translations. To be Footnote? sure, the work of translation sometimes involves adding words, The CSB does not shy away from footnotes; it has ten in this very and by comparison two Bibles known for their gender-accurate chapter. Some notes indicate something has been added for clarity. translation approach are The first of these, for example, the NRSV, which adds is at Gen 1:30, where a note “man/men” to the NT 320 TABLE 1 reads, “I have given added times, and the CEB which Translation Year(s) Supplied occurrences for clarity.” The note informs adds it 232 times. The table, the reader that “I have given” of “man/men”10 therefore, shows that—in this is not in Hebrew but has particular way—widely used KJV 1611 1140 been provided in English for complementarian translations ASV 1901 1031 the sake of clarity. Though are moving toward egalitarian my opinion is that adding RSV 1952 877 translations. “a symbol of” obscures NASB 1977 878 Fathers/Ancestors rather than clarifies, the NIV 1978 & 1984 922 Perhaps the most prominent CSB translators presumably change made in the 2020 disagree.

Therefore, a NKJV 1982 755 revision of the CSB is the footnote such as “a symbol NASB 1995 832 of added for clarity” would reduction of occurrences HCSB 1999 & 2010 866 / 617 clearly have been appropriate. of the word “father/s.” Of More than merely course, “father” still, rightly, ESV 2001 & 2016 577 appropriate, such a note occurs in the many places CSB 2017 & 2020 468 seems essential, for the CSB that it actually means declares a firm commitment “father.” But in about 220 to pursue “both linguistic precision to the original languages and places it has been changed to “ancestors” or something similar. readability in contemporary English.”8 Adding words that affect Below are three examples: interpretation, when the Greek text is intelligible as it stands, is Gen 47:3b: “They said to Pharaoh, ‘Your servants, both not consistent with “linguistic precision.” we and our fathers/ancestors, are shepherds.’”

A Surprising Strength

We move now away from particular texts to translation choices about the gendered language which occurs thousands of times throughout the Bible. I am referring to questions such as: How to translate certain words, especially pronouns, since Hebrew has two genders (masc. and fem.), and Greek has three (masc., fem., neut.), but English does not use grammatical gender like these biblical languages do.

How to translate family terms such as “father,” “brother,” and “son,” when used inclusively or metaphorically.

Whether to use “man” with meanings such as “humankind” and “people.”

Man/Men These kinds of translation decisions, though each instance may seem negligible, have significant effect when encountered cumulatively.9 An example I have often given is the large number of times that “man” occurs in the NT of various English Bibles where “man” is not in the Greek text (see Table 1). My agenda in doing so has typically been to reveal the highest numbers: the KJV (1140 instances) and the 1984 NIV (922 instances). But there

cbeinternational.org

Here, at Gen 47:3, the 2017 CSB has Joseph’s brothers referring to their “fathers” as shepherds, and the 2020 revision has changed “fathers” to “ancestors.” Women were indeed shepherds at that time; consider Rachel, Joseph’s mother, who was a shepherd (see Gen 29:9).

Mal 2:10: “Don’t all of us have one Father? Didn’t one God create us? Why then do we act treacherously against one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers/ancestors?”

This example from Malachi is an example both of the change from “fathers” to “ancestors” and also, early in the verse, of the CSB’s continued use of “Father” to refer to God. Luke 1:72–73: “He has dealt mercifully with our fathers/ ancestors and remembered his holy covenant—the oath that he swore to our father Abraham. . . .”

This example, which records the inspired words of Zechariah, shows the 2020 CSB changing from “fathers” to “ancestors” when referring to ancestors in general, but retaining “father” when referring specifically to Abraham.

Other Family Terms Though such changes to “father/ancestor” terminology are the main improvements in the direction of gender-accuracy, two

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 27

others are worth noting. At Gen 31:43, the word “son/s” has twice been replaced with the more accurate “children.” And in three instances, the word “nanny/ies” has been changed to “mother” (Ruth 4:16) or “nursing mother/s” (Num 11:12, Isa 60:4).

What prompted me to write a review of the 2017 CSB (see endnote 1) was that it, unlike its predecessor the HCSB, used “brother/s and sister/s” instead of simply “brother/s” about 175 times. This gender-accurate practice continues in the 2020 revision, though in a small number of places it has changed “brothers and sisters” back to “brothers.” This happens, for example, twice in Acts 15 (vv. 7 and 13), presumably because of the translators’ view that James was speaking only to men when he addressed “Paul and Barnabas and some others” and “the apostles and elders” in Jerusalem (see 15:2, 6, 12).

Conclusion Two types of translation issues tend to divide complementarians and egalitarians. The first is the handling of texts that speak specifically of women. In these cases, the 2020 CSB will, with some exceptions, not be valued by egalitarians. The second is the pervasive use of masculine language throughout the Bible, which is arguably more prominent in certain English translations than in the original languages. In this area, the updated CSB will be appreciated by some egalitarians.

In the end, I would certainly recommend the CSB over the ESV, both in regard to gender-accuracy and to overall quality.

I would not, however, recommend the CSB over other Bibles that have a commitment to gender-accurate translation—most notably the CEB. Nevertheless, the CSB, both in 2017 and again in 2020, has taken surprising steps in the right direction.

Notes 1. Jeff Miller, “Book Review: Christian Standard Bible,” 31/3 (Summer 2017) 30; https://cbeinternational.org/resource/book-review/priscillapapers-academic-journal/book-review-christian-standard-bible.

2. Gen 1:26–27, 2:18; Ps 68:11; Rom 16:1, 7; 1 Cor 11:10, 14:33–36; 1 Tim 2:11–12, 3:1–2, 3:11–12; Eph 2:15b, 5:21–24.

3. Scripture quotations marked CSB have been taken from the Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers.

Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

4. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, NCB (Eerdmans, 1980) 106; Katharine C. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women (CBE, 2003) 99–101.

5. See, for example, Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed. (Eerdmans, 2014) 567n92; Craig Keener, 1–2 Corinthians (Cambridge University Press, 2005) 94; Philip B. Payne, “Wild Hair and Gender Equality in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16,” Priscilla Papers 20/3 (Summer 2006) 13, https://cbeinternational.org/resource/article/priscilla-papers-academicjournal/wild-hair-and-gender-equality-1-corinthians-112; Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle's Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Baker Academic, 2016) 35–36.

6. See, for example, the commentaries by Raymond Collins (Liturgical, 1999), Joseph Fitzmyer (Yale University Press, 2008), David Garland (Baker Academic, 2003), Robert Scott Nash (Smyth & Helwys, 2009), Andrew Spurgeon (Fortress, 2011), and Anthony Thiselton (Eerdmans, 2000).

7. Paul Gardner, 1 Corinthians, ZECGNT (Zondervan, 2018) 492.

8. https://csbible.com/about-the-csb/.

9. See Jeffrey D. Miller, “A Defense of Gender-Accurate Bible Translation,” ch. 23 in Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural, and Practical Perspectives, 3rd ed., ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Cynthia Long Westfall, and Christa L. McKirland (IVP Academic, 2021).

10. These numbers include a few occurrences of “husband/s,” since the Greek term for “man” and “husband,” which occurs 216 times in the NA28/UBS5 Greek text, is the same. The numbers result from subtracting 216 from the number of English occurrences. KJV, for example, has 1356 occurrences of “man/men” and “husband,” and the table gives 1140 (1356 minus 216). The point is to show a trend, not to argue for a Bible void of the word “man.”

JEFF MILLER is editor of Priscilla Papers.

Save Your Family from Taxes Many supporters make their largest gift by leaving a portion of their IRA, 401(k), or other retirement funds in their will or by filing the appropriate beneficiary forms.

When you give in this way, you protect your loved ones from heavy tax burdens that are unique to retirement assets. You also provide significant ministry support that will extend your impact — well beyond your lifetime!

It’s a smart way to care for your family and further CBE’s mission that means so much to you!

28 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

cbeinternational.org

Book Review

Imagining Equity: The Gifts of Christian Feminist Theology

by Karen Strand Winslow (Wesley’s Foundery Books / General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, The United Methodist Church, 2021) Reviewed by Jeff Miller

Karen Strand Winslow opens her latest book with a rhetorically powerful introduction, challenging readers to “visualize no sexism” and to “imagine the history of the church with women of all races standing with their brothers on platforms of authority.”1 Winslow does not claim such a history would solve all problems, but she does insist it would have given us “a very different and better world” (1).

The introduction goes on to explain the subtitle’s terminology, “Christian Feminist Theology.” Winslow does not disparage similar terms such as egalitarianism and mutuality.2 Nevertheless, she prefers “feminism” and, more precisely, “Christian feminist theology,” describing it as follows: Christian feminist theology challenges traditional theology and church practices that have restricted half of the people of God from serving God and the church as priests, pastors, teachers, and baptizers. It is constructive in that it finds in the Bible examples of dynamic adaptation and revision of customs in narratives, prophecy, and wisdom, including especially the incarnation and Jesus’s life and teaching. (5) The introduction closes with a five-page “tour” of the book’s six chapters. This robust summary is an example—as are the epilogue and Winslow’s writing style—of the book’s user-friendly character. Indeed, the author herself calls it “a primer . . . an accessible introductory volume” (6).

Chapter 1, “A Christian Feminist View of Sexism and Religion,” digs deep into the origins of sexism, asking and answering foundational questions. Drawing not only from biblical studies, but also from the sociology of religion, Winslow identifies roots of sexism and patriarchy in ancient sacrificial systems: “Sacrifice was a male bonding ritual that excluded females from its practice and benefits and thereby established patriliny, which is tracing descent through the male line in order to transmit property, names, and family heritage” (15). She then identifies Greek dualism as another ancient source of sexism and traces its influence through the church fathers, medieval theologians, and beyond. Reflecting the book’s subtitle, “The Gifts of Christian Feminist Theology,” ch. 1 concludes as follows: “Those who use their gifts for liberating biblical interpretation and theology can thereby untangle sexism from Christianity and steer present and future generations away from patriarchy’s perils. This is the task of Christian feminist theology” (28).

Chapter 2, “A Christian Feminist View of Old Testament Scripture: Outsiders, Prostitutes, and Wives,” tells and applies the stories of certain “women who were essential to the formation of Israel and the church, owing to their wits, wisdom, and faith”

cbeinternational.org

(29). Winslow intentionally chooses to discuss women who were outsiders—Tamar, Zipporah, and Rahab. Readers of this chapter should know that it represents the tip of an exegetical iceberg, for Winslow’s publications on the women of the OT are abundant.3 Among the chapter’s key insights is that these stories elevate creating and preserving life and the shrewdness of the women who do so: Nonetheless in order to appreciate delightful biblical stories and to understand troubling ones, we must learn from each passage, while remembering how important life is to God, and that this is Israel’s story about how unexpected and marginalized people outwit the powerful. We learn from these women what faith looks like in action. (39–40) Chapter 3 shifts to the NT: “A Christian Feminist View of Women in the New Testament: They Loved Much.” It gives a brief catalog of the numerous women to and with whom Jesus and Paul ministered. It then focuses on two famously difficult texts, 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2.

Winslow mentions the interpretation that 1 Cor 14:34–35 includes material Paul cites and refutes.4 She seems to prefer, however, the view that these two verses are a post-Pauline insertion, calling it the conclusion of “most textual scholars” (43).

After briefly summarizing these options, she moves quickly to an especially helpful conclusion: In any case, verses 34–35 advised women against conversing and asking questions in the churches; the passage says nothing against them prophesying, preaching, or praying, which obviously occurred without censure, for under these circumstances they were to cover their heads (1 Cor. 11:5, 13). (44) Winslow does not consider Paul the author of 1 Timothy (or of the two other Pastoral Epistles). She does not defend this view (remember, this is “a primer . . . an accessible introductory volume”) but does briefly explain the nature and implications of such an approach. Nor does she use her view of authorship as an escape clause to side-step the letter. Instead, her conclusions about 1 Tim 2 are rooted in the local and specific nature of letters: “1 Timothy 2:12–15 (‘I do not permit women to teach . . .’) is addressed to the needs of the church at Ephesus. The words about women in 1 Timothy were applicable only to that time and place and were not part of a discipline manual created for all churches for all time” (46). Her interpretation of 1 Tim 2 draws heavily on the book I Suffer Not a Woman by Catherine and Richard Kroeger, which considers certain aspects of an early gnostic mythology as

Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 29

the salient historical background for understanding this text.5 It is good to see interaction with the Kroegers’ scholarship on 1 Tim 2, which is not currently as influential as it was in the 1990s.

Certain commonalities between Wesleyan theology and Christian feminist theology form the foundation for ch. 4. These include “delight in ambiguity and the dynamic nature of God and scripture,” “divine-human interdependence, relationality, and cooperation,” and emphasis on “experiential, practical theology” (51–52). While these are the chapter’s theological foundations, its catalyst is that, despite official denominational stances, many women pastors face opposition from local Wesleyan congregations. Winslow’s strategy includes revisiting certain biblical texts with significant input from historic Wesleyan voices, especially B. T. Roberts, founder of The Free Methodist Church who, in 1891, authored the still-timely treatise, Ordaining Women. In this chapter, Winslow speaks not only with insight as a scholar, but also with influence as an elder in the Free Methodist Church. As such, she twice issues a call to action: I call for an intentional focus on education in order to support the ordination and placement of women pastors in order to bring the salvation of God as preached and enacted by women to people in and out of the church. (52) I conclude this chapter by emphasizing that if women may be ordained, they must be given churches. If not, their ordination, their call, their training, and their gifts mean nothing. To break the barriers against appointing women as pastors to our churches, congregations must be educated. It is the responsibility of leadership to do this. (63) Chapter 5 unveils a connection between the doctrine of Roman Catholicism and of the famed scholar, apologist, novelist, and Anglican layman, C. S. Lewis. Expressed most clearly in Lewis’s 1948 essay now titled, “Priestesses in the Church?,” that doctrine is that women are unfit for the priesthood precisely because, as women, they are incapable of representing the Lord to the church.

Winslow not only points out this sexist doctrine, but counters it: Lewis’s conception of the masculinity of God—a conception that makes God in the image of man—is never clearer than when he writes that male priests fail when they are insufficiently masculine. I propose the opposite assertion: that priests and ministers fail, the church fails, and the cause of Christ fails because most ordinands have been insufficiently feminine; they have been incompletely human and incomplete as divine representatives. (85)6

True unity and equality mean that women share men’s experience of faith and also that men learn and share women’s experience of faith. Christian theology must reflect their experiences of the fabric of life as it is lived in its various colors and textures by all women in all nations. (100) A brief epilogue reiterates certain main points and tells a portion of the author’s own story. In my opinion, this book is an important contribution, for Methodists and other Wesleyans to be sure, but for other Christians as well. I intend to re-read it and to recommend it to my students as well as to church leaders in need of guidance and encouragement.

Notes 1. Winslow's other books include Daughters and Fathers in the Hebrew Bible (forthcoming); 1–2 Kings: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, New Beacon Bible Commentary (Beacon, 2017); Early Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses’ Wives: Exogamist Marriage and Ethnic Identity (Edwin Mellen, 2006).

2. See further, Karen Strand Winslow, “The Purpose, Principles, and Goals of Egalitarian Biblical Interpretation,” in The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Approaches to the Hebrew Bible, ed. Susanne Scholz (Oxford University Press, 2021).

3. See https://apu.edu/faculty/cvs/kwinslow.pdf.

4. 1 Cor 14:34–35: “Women should remain silent in the churches.

They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (NIV).

5. Catherine Clark Kroeger and Richard Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Baker, 1992), esp. ch. 16 and pp. 171–77. Their translation of vv. 12–13 is: “I do not allow a woman to teach (didaskein) that she was the originator (authentein) of man, but she is to be in conformity (hesuchia) [with Genesis 2]. For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (Winslow, 47). Note that Winslow dedicates the book to Catherine Clark Kroeger and other mentors.

6. Priscilla Papers was pleased to publish a slightly edited version of ch. 5: Karen Strand Winslow, “Women Priests and the Image of God,” Priscilla Papers 34/2 (Spring 2020) 23–30, https://cbeinternational.org/ resource/article/priscilla-papers-academic-journal/women-priestsand-image-god.

JEFF MILLER is editor of Priscilla Papers.

The final chapter, “Christian Feminist Revisioning of Theology,” describes the nature and task of feminist theology. Christian feminist theology critiques and exposes; it reflects, recovers, and reforms. If this chapter is the apex of the book (I believe it is), then the chapter’s own highpoint is its section titled, “Revisioning and Transforming Theology and Society” (99–102). Consider, for example, the eloquent power of this summons to unity: 30 • Priscilla Papers

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

cbeinternational.org

CBE INTERNATIONAL (Christians for Biblical Equality) CBE International (CBE) is a nonprofit organization of Christian men and women who believe that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings of Scriptures such as Galatians 3:28.

Mission Statement CBE exists to promote the biblical message that God calls women and men of all cultures, races, and classes to share authority equally in service and leadership in the home, church, and world. Our mission is to eliminate the power imbalance between men and women resulting from theological patriarchy.

Statement of Faith • We believe in one God, creator and sustainer of the universe, eternally existing as three persons equal in power and glory.

• We believe in the full deity and the full humanity of Jesus Christ.

• We believe that eternal salvation and restored relationships are only possible through faith in Jesus Christ who died for us, rose from the dead, and is coming again. This salvation is offered to all people.

• We believe the Holy Spirit equips us for service and sanctifies us from sin.

• We believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, is reliable, and is the final authority for faith and practice.

• We believe that women and men are equally created in God’s image and given equal authority and stewardship of God’s creation.

• We believe that men and women are equally responsible for and distorted by sin, resulting in shattered relationships with God, self, and others.

Core Values • Scripture is our authoritative guide for faith, life, and practice.

• Patriarchy (male dominance) is not a biblical ideal but a result of sin.

• Patriarchy is an abuse of power, taking from females what God has given them: their dignity, and freedom, their leadership, and often their very lives.

• While the Bible reflects patriarchal culture, the Bible does not teach patriarchy in human relationships. cbeinternational.org

• Christ’s redemptive work frees all people from patriarchy, calling women and men to share authority equally in service and leadership.

• God’s design for relationships includes faithful marriage between a man and a woman, celibate singleness and mutual submission in Christian community.

• The unrestricted use of women’s gifts is integral to the work of the Holy Spirit and essential for the advancement of the gospel in the world.

• Followers of Christ are to oppose injustice and patriarchal teachings and practices that marginalize and abuse females and males.

Envisioned Future CBE envisions a future where all believers are freed to exercise their gifts for God’s glory and purposes, with the full support of their Christian communities.

CBE Membership CBE is pleased to make available, for free, every Priscilla Papers article ever published. In addition, find the full archive of CBE’s magazine, Mutuality, and hundreds of book reviews and recordings of lectures given by worldrenowned scholars like N.T. Wright, Gordon Fee, and more!

Find it all at www.cbeinternational.org.

CBE Board of Reference Miriam Adeney, Myron S. Augsburger, Raymond J. Bakke, Michael Bird, Esme Bowers, Paul Chilcote, Havilah Dharamraj, Gordon D. Fee, J. Lee Grady, Joel B. Green, David Joel Hamilton, Fatuma Hashi, Roberta Hestenes, Richard Howell, Craig S. Keener, Tara B. Leach, Gricel Medina, Joy Moore, LaDonna Osborn, Jane Overstreet, Philip B. Payne, John E. Phelan Jr., Ron Pierce, Kay F. Rader, Paul A. Rader, Ronald J. Sider, Aída Besançon Spencer, William David Spencer, John Stackhouse, Todd Still, Ruth A. Tucker, Cynthia Long Westfall, Cecilia Yau. Priscilla Papers | 35/3 | Summer 2021 • 31

CBE International 122 West Franklin Avenue, Suite 218 Minneapolis, MN 55404-2451

Non-Profit Org.

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED

Jefferson City, MO Permit No. 210

providing quality resources on biblical gender equality Visit CBE Bookstore at cbe.today/bookstore.

PRE-ORDER

Mary’s Voice in the Gospel According to John A New Translation with Commentary Michael Pakaluk The Gospel according to John has always been recognized as different from the “synoptic” accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But what explains that difference? In this new translation with commentary, Michael Pakaluk suggests an answer and unlocks a twothousand-year-old mystery— the subtle but powerful influence of the mother of Jesus on the fourth Gospel.

32 • Priscilla Papers

Women in the Mission of the Church Their Opportunities and Obstacles Throughout Christian History Leanne M. Dzubinski, Anneke H. Stasson Women have been central to the work of Christian ministry from the time of Jesus to the twenty-first century. Yet the story of Christianity is too often told as a story of men. This accessibly written book tells the story of women throughout church history, demonstrating their integral participation in the church’s mission.

| 35/3 | Summer 2021

Imagining Equity The Gifts of Christian Feminist Theology Karen Strand Winslow Christian feminist theology challenges theology and church practices that have restricted half of God’s people from serving God and the church as priests, pastors, teachers, and baptizers. Winslow offers a constructive argument and biblical examples to suggest a dynamic adaptation and revision of customs in narratives, prophecy, and wisdom, including especially the incarnation and in Jesus’s life and teaching.

Together in Ministry

Women and Men in Flourishing Partnerships Rob Dixon Can women and men return to the Genesis ideal of co-laborers? Dixon knows it’s possible. Based on qualitative field research among ministry practitioners, Together in Ministry offers a prophetic roadmap for individuals and communities as they seek to develop flourishing ministry partnerships for women and men.

cbeinternational.org