Theological vs. “Plain-Sense” Exegesis of Genesis 2 and Ephesians 5 with respect to the Marriage Covenant

In a recent comment, Mike Aubrey draws a distinction between the “socio-cultural-historical” exegesis of Ephesians 5:18–6:9 by an egalitarian like Gordon Fee and the exegesis of non-egalitarians of the same passage in which the force of “wives, submit to your husbands in everything” is circumscribed. How is it possible, Mike asks, to take what looks like an intentionally unqualified statement and qualify it in a variety of ways?

Two answers to the question come to mind. They are mutually compatible. First of all, it is typical of statements that are intentionally unqualified to nonetheless be subject to qualification. That’s because communication takes place at the intersection of logic and rhetorical emphasis. In short, if we were able to ask to the author of Ephesians if by “wives, submit to your husbands in everything,” that meant, “even if one’s husband asks you to become an accomplice to murder,” it stands to reason that the author would reply, “of course not.”

Second, as I suggested before:

There is more than one way to read scripture. One way is to read a given passage historically, in terms of its specific cultural context. This is an illuminating method, but it does not really treat a passage of scripture as scripture, i.e., as a text to be squared with all other texts deemed as scripture, and as a text whose sense and weight are determined by its “openness” to illuminating an overarching metanarrative – sometimes referred to as a regula fidei – itself derived from scripture.

Whenever scripture is treated as scripture, then sacra scriptura sui ipsius interpres – scripture is understood to be its own interpreter, and the meaning of a particular passage as scripture will be determined on the basis of the assumption that all of scripture has a single author whose discourse is self-consistent. Traditional exegesis and theological exegesis, Jewish and Christian, has always proceeded on the basis of this assumption.

Thus it is that egalitarians Aída and William Spencer leave “socio-cultural-historical” exegesis of Genesis 2 behind when they interpret that chapter’s concept of marriage along the following lines:

First, we learn that God made humanity into two different kinds. Marriage is made for monogamy in a heterosexual union. God did not take out two ribs or four ribs to create a harem for Adam, but a single one, as Tertullian insists (“God fashioned one woman for man, taking only one of his ribs, even though he had many,” Monogamy 4). (Marriage at the Crossroads, 27)

This take on Genesis 2 is possible if and only if it is read against the grain of its proximate context - the book of Genesis, in which polygamy is taken for granted - and with the grain of its macro-context – inclusive of the New Testament, in which the ideal of monogamy is upheld by Jesus and Paul. This kind of exegesis is convincing if and only if one has a high view of scripture according to which, in classical terms, it is verbally inspired. On this view, each and every word of scripture is there for a reason that goes beyond what its human author could possibly have imagined.

As an aside, I would note that interpretation of other normative cultural documents, the US Constitution in particular, proceeds on the basis of analogous procedures. In a blockbuster book, Jaroslav Pelikan laid out the analogies with care (see bibliography).   

As I noted before:

A consistent strength of [Sarah and Jim Sumner’s] book is its insistence on defining terms like head within a theological and christological framework provided by scripture. If and only if this is done, New Testament passages which speak of the husband (man) as the head of the wife (woman) are interpreted in a theologically responsible manner.

One may disagree with the particulars of the Sumners’ and/or the Spencers’ biblically-based qualifications of the rhetorically unqualified statement in Eph 5: “wives, submit to your husbands in everything.” One may disagree with the particulars of their christologically-motivated definition of terms like head and body as applied, metaphorically, to husband and wife.  But the method employed cannot be challenged without challenging the bulk of Jewish and Christian exegesis down through the centuries in the same breath.

Bibliography

Jaroslav Pelikan, Interpreting the Bible and the Constitution (A John W. Kluge Center Book, Library of Congress, Washington DC: New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004); Jim Sumner and Sarah Sumner, Just How Married Do You Want to Be? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008); Aída Besançon Spencer, William David Spencer, Steve Tracy, and Celestia Tracy, Marriage at the Crossroads: Couples in Conversation About Discipleship, Gender Roles, Decision Making and Intimacy (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009)

Comments

[Looney]

My wife keeps reminding me of Ephesians 5:25 - that I am supposed to die for her.

[JohnFH]

The notion that Ephesians 5 is outmoded collapses, it seems to me, as soon as a verse like 5:25 is given proper emphasis.

[Mike Aubrey]

John, thanks for taking my word out of context and then using it to make a false dichotomy.

Unfortunately, I don't have time discussion the issue. I'm going camping instead and will have probably forgotten about it entirely by the time I get back.

[JohnFH]

Mike,

Enjoy your camping!

But I do hope you take the time at some point to explain why a description of two ways to read scripture ("historical-critical" and "theological" / "canonical" / "systematic") creates a false dichotomy.

The "dichotomy" is not exactly my invention.

[Trierr]

John,

This is something that I have been wrestling with lately. A couple questions:

1) When you say "that all of scripture has a single author whose discourse is self-consistent," does this imply that scripture is not polyphonic? Does it imply that scriptures must be harmonized or at least harmonizable?
2) When is it appropriate to make leaps between different scriptures and are there times when it is not? E.g. Can we assume that the fires of judgment mentioned in Matthew are the same as the lake of fire mentioned in the Revelation of John? Do we interpret what Paul means by faith in light of the definition the author of Hebrews gives it?

[JohnFH]

Trierr,

Your questions are mine as well. Any answers I might offer are tentative.

To keep with the musical metaphor, scripture is certainly polyphonic, but as scripture it is also understood to be a symphony with a single conductor.

But that does not settle the question. A whole lot of counterpointing seems to be going on in the symphony, if one pays attention at all. This is clear in the legal materials of the Pentateuch, in the various discussions throughout the Hebrew Bible about whether the sins of one generation determine the fate of the succeeding generation, and in James' response to Pauline teaching. Just examples.

As far as leaps are concerned, it is often essential to note diversity before an underlying unity is identified. The search for that unity nonetheless has always been considered a fundamental task of theology, though the point of departure has usually been a canon within the canon that might consist of, for example, Paul and John in the NT, such that Hebrews is assimilated to Paul, and not the other way around.

A major contribution of biblical studies in the last 100 years has been the attempt to allow neglected participants in the symphony to speak in their own voice. It is now possible to speak with more confidence than ever before about the unique contribution that specific books like Job and Qohelet make, or in the New Testament, Matthew and Revelation. But it is not yet clear what contribution those make to the whole, if you follow me.

A huge task remains: integrational theology that treats the scriptures as a symphony, themes of which, I think it is wise to recognize, are taken up with faithfulness and originality by subsequent tradition, and other themes of which have sometimes been neglected, set aside, or misunderstood.

[Dan Martin]

This seems to me to be one of those passages where if both complementarians and egalitarians would get off their high horses long enough to let the text speak for itself, they'd have a whole lot less ammunition to lob at each other and a whole lot more work to do in their own relationships.

If context means anything at all, it would seem to me the context of the very same passage ought to count for a lot. If we are all "submitting ourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ," (v. 21), and if we husbands are "loving our wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it," (v. 25), then wives have nothing to fear from submitting themselves to their husbands. It's a package deal, and it really burns me when men quote only verses 22-24 without the brackets that Paul gave to those verses.

It is my wife who taught me that submission in a truly loving relationship is not grovelling. Not to toot my own horn at all--I know my faults--but she's no doormat and living with and SERVING her has taught me a great deal about how this passage can be applied.