One argument made by complementarians is that their interpretation is the most accurate because it is the plain reading of the text. At one time this argument did intimidate me. But it doesn’t any longer. Why?
Because the same people who will pull this out as a trump card don’t live by the plain reading of the text in many parts of Scripture. Let’s look at some examples.
Matthew 6:5-13
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward. But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
And when you pray, do not babble on like pagans, for they think that by their many words they will be heard. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
So then, this is how you should pray:
‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come,
Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’
So anyone who prays with an open door or outdoors or away from home or prays more than the above words is not keeping with the plain meaning of the text.
Luke 14:25-27
Now large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and He turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple. And whoever does not carry his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple.
So I hope the person reading the plain meaning of the text hates their parents and spouse and children. And they better be carrying a cross around.
Romans 16:16
Greet one another with a holy kiss
I am sure everyone who reads the plain meaning of the text is doing this in their church, aren’t you?
Matthew 5:27-30
You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell.
Where are all the people missing eyes and hands?
Matthew 5:23-24
So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
So the plain meaning folks are bringing gifts to the altar. And they are also leaving and coming back if they remember someone has something against them, right?
Titus 2:9-10
Slaves are to submit to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not stealing from them, but showing all good faith, so that in every respect they will adorn the teaching about God our Savior.
Obviously the Underground Railroad was a big mistake to the plain text people.
Okay, Sallie, we get it. We know that sometimes the plain meaning doesn’t work.
Great. So let’s look at another one.
1 Timothy 2:8-15
Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or dissension.
Likewise, I want the women to adorn themselves with respectable apparel, with modesty, and with self-control, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess to worship God.
A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. Women, however, will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
So reading the plain meaning of this passage, we know men should pray with their hands lifted up. Women should not wear gold or pearls. Women will be saved through childbearing (not Jesus) and only if they perform the works listed out there. That’s the plain meaning of the text.
Except the very people who will point out the plain meaning of verses 11 and 12 will say that the plain meaning doesn’t apply to the verses immediately preceding and following them. So they want it both ways. They want to say that of course that verse doesn’t mean to literally lift hands. And it is okay for a woman to wear gold and pearls. But when we get to verse 11 and 12 we better read the exact plain meaning of the text.
Okay, so what is the exact plain meaning of the original text? Because that is what matters. The original meaning of the author and his original intent for the original audience.
In John Zens’ book What’s With Paul and Women? Unlocking the Cultural Background to 1 Timothy 2 we read this:
Too many people-in-the-pews read their chosen Bible translation assuming it is completely accurate and trustworthy. Leland Ryken rightly observes:
Readers who do not know the original biblical languages assume that an English translation reproduces what the Bible really says… People naturally and legitimately appeal to the English translation in their hands as constituting “what the Bible says”…. Readers of the English translation operate on the premise that they are reading what the Bible actually says.
There is absolutely nothing illegitimate about researching to better comprehend–even to confirm or deny–that a particular translation is correct. (pages 47-48)
What I find especially interesting is that many of the groups and people who appeal to the plain meaning of the text are thrilled to share the latest scientific discovery that confirms their view of Creation or the Flood or whatever. But if someone wants to discuss the cultural setting of a Scripture that might prove to discredit the traditional complementarian view on women, men, headship, etc. then they hastily rebuke the person. These very same people will claim their opponent is just trying to explain away the plain meaning of the text or is looking for an excuse not to follow the Bible. Again, they want it both ways. They want to use whatever information is available to them when it suits their purposes, but they won’t allow anyone with a different view to do the same thing.
I’ll share more about the 1 Timothy 2 passage in another post and will also look at some of the excellent insights Jon Zens offers in his book.
Is Complementarian Versus Egalitarian a Primary, Gospel Issue?
Sallie, I just picked up a copy of Greek for the Rest of us by William D. Mounce. Since I would love to study Greek but haven’t the time right now, this book was suggested to me by a friend and I am finding it to be quite helpful in showing me how to use Bible study tools. Mr. Mounce, btw, was the NT chair in the translation of the ESV.
Mr. Mounce makes several observations about translations and original text that really helped me understand these “troubling” passages in Scripture. In talking about how some people insist on word for word translations, he says “All translation involves interpretation. It is impossible to translate without being interpretative. Anyone who does not agree with this simply does not understand Greek, Hebrew, or probably any other language well.”
He goes on to explain that translators have to make judgment calls and that, depending on their theological bias, words are given different meanings. Here is one example. In Romans 16:1, the text reads “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess in the church in Cenchrea.” The word “deaconess” in the Greek is the same word for “servant” and in some translations servant is used because the thought of a woman deaconess is offensive to some people. Mounce goes on to say “That’s an important difference. Was Phoebe part of the official structure of the church, a deaconess? Was there an official structure of the church? Was there, in the official structure of the church, a place for a woman? How are you going to translate the word? “Servant” “deacon” or “deaconess”? And the interesting thing here is that the noun is masculine but you can still legitimately translate it “deaconess.” The translator must make an interpretive decision. “ And then, of course, we still have to consider what the actual structure of the church was at that time? It certainly wasn’t what we see today, which makes me even wonder about the legitimacy of how we do church in the first place! The more I study the more I am convinced that the tight package of complementarianism is not tight at all. And I had considered myself as one for many years because I had been taught to believe that if one was truly conservative, certainly one had to be one.
Thanks for this series Sallie…so, so helpful.
Loving this series Sallie.
Anyone who thinks word for word translation is the bees knees, really takes the cake, in my book.:wink:
some expressions make no sense translated word for word, and some words used in the bible have obtained meaning from their use which was not inherent in them when they were first used. for instance Hipocrite, simply means actor. I think if Jesus used 21st century English he might have said “Poser”. and some things are hyperbole like the hand and Eye bit. (how tragic if someone did not understand that) and some things, especially from Paul, are sarcasm. think about in Hebrews 5 where he basically calls them a bunch of thumbsucking toddlers for still drinking milk instead of solid food.
I think sometimes we are so afraid to study what the bible might really say (or maybe we have had they curiosity drilled out of us in school) that we just accept whatever pre-chewed babyfood our leaders happen to spoon feed us. Perhaps its time to get into the meat.
Mrs. N
Thanks for the great comments!
I took two years of German at Michigan State. One funny thing we learned that I’ve never forgotten… You would never say, “Ich bin heiss” if you are feeling physically hot or warm (Ich = I, bin = am, heiss = hot). It doesn’t mean that. It means I’m s*xually turned on.
Yes, it is important to understand the subtle differences in the various languages. 🙂
I’ve mentioned before that I actually haven’t read much from the complementarian camp in all of this, but I have to say that all of this seems like a bit of a straw man fallacy. I don’t know anyone who thinks that the “plain meaning” means to throw out context, literary genre, hyperbole, and the like. This is against all hermeneutical principles, a subjuct of study required of undergraduate Biblical Studies students.
On the other hand, I think some of these passages probably ought to be taken literally, but aren’t, because our culture is functionally gnostic. So, for instance, what if men actually raised their hands to pray? What if we greeted each other with a holy kiss, as Middle Eastern Christians still do, after two thousand years?
That Matthew 5 verse isn’t talking about Christians per se, though I believe the principle applies. This is Jesus setting Jews straight over priorities.
Etc.
As far as women being saved through childbearing, I have to say that that verse was a complete mystery to me before I had children. I really struggled with becoming a mother–I was young, immature, selfish, etc. I finally studied the Greek and realized that the word for saved carries with it different conotations in the Greek. σῴζω does not always mean salvation in the absolute sense. It also implies a removal of obstructions to the work of God. It was then that I realized that all of my struggle was actually the fight between spirit and flesh–I was being refined, and the fire was painful for me. It is hard to stop being selfish, especially when God has decided it is your time before you’ve actually repented. 😉 I think that Greek women would have read this with understanding, which is why I think one of the biggest problems in the church is that many pastors and parishoners cannot read the original words, nor can they understand the nuance of the literature.
Okay, so that was a tangent. I hope you don’t mind my too-long comments.
A couple of other things…
Jon Zens has a very interesting explanation of the saved through childbearing section based on the cultural context. I’ll share more about that when I do a post on that passage.
The Danvers Statement is the Biblical Manhood and Womanhood/complementarian manifesto, so to speak. Here are two of the concerns they mention in their Rationale:
So it seems to me they are saying that people should either read the plain meaning of the text or be told what the texts mean by those who can correctly interpret them. Anyone who labors to get at the context, history, and other subtle nuances (that would have been obvious to the original recipients) is a threat to Biblical authority.
With the prevalence of free Bible study tools available online (such as Bible.cc), there is no reason for any Christian to not be a good Berean. While I understand that not everyone in the church is a scholar or even scholarly, I think it is an elitist smack in the face to basically say the ordinary Christian is too stupid to study the Scriptures in any depth and understand what they mean.
I’m glad I have a Baptist pastor that really studies the Scriptures along with the Hebrew and Greek to get the real meaning of the text, even if it disagrees with some of his favorite authors. He really encourages us to search the Scriptures for ourselves. I’ve heard some pastors in the charismatic movements say a preacher should not study at all, but just say what comes to him in the pulpit. I’ve also heard some Baptists (but not many) say to study the KJV only and that it’s wrong to get into the Greek and Hebrew.
Amen on the comments about translating–these are reasons I’ve finally felt it was ok to read other Bible versions besides KJV.