A Hermeneutical Contradiction that Evangelicals—Especially Baptists—Must Consider

A standard point of hermeneutics is that the earliest teaching should be given the most weight. Leon Morris explains it well, commenting on Matthew 19:4.

Jesus declined to go along with the accepted rabbinic methods of understanding the question; he did not side with any of the disputants. But by appealing to the creation he was making use of a rabbinic method of disputation, namely, “the more original, the weightier.” This meant that what happened as early as the creation narrative was weightier than what Moses said considerably later (though, of course, it did not do away with the Mosaic regulation; that regulation was still part of the law and was to be respected, but it must be interpreted in the light of the more original statement).¹

The context here is the discussion with the Pharisees about marriage and divorce. This is important to the overall point of this article because it will betray that we as evangelicals play fast and loose with the text when it fits our presuppositions. God forbid we reconsider our understanding. God forbid we’ve gotten things wrong. God forbid we live up to our inherited mantra: ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda (the church reformed, always reforming).

We are so fast to run to Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and point to Jesus’ teaching here as justifying the belief that

Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.²

And then, because it was the “created intention,” we say that the whole world (the whole, unsaved world, blind and dead in its sins³) is expected to adhere to this understanding or they can’t possibly be saved by Christ. There’s no explicit problem yet, but there will be.

Let’s look at another Scripture passage that finds its justification in the early chapters of Genesis. Another favorite topic for Southern Baptists. Female pastors. Here’s what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:11–15,

A woman should learn in silence with full submission. I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. For Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good judgment.

This is not the time to debate the proper interpretation of this text—I merely want to use it to demonstrate a glaring inconsistency. But several questions should be raised regardless.

• Why do we discuss this text as having anything to do with female “pastors” when the word used here is “teach,” not “preach” or “pastor”?
• Are men ever anywhere said that they are expected to “have authority over [anyone]” in the church?
• What sort of revisionist history is going on in this retelling of the creation story? Adam didn’t transgress? What?

If Paul wrote this—which good, evangelical Baptists accept, but more questioning scholars debate—then he has clearly contradicted his own words in Romans 5:14, not to mention Galatians 3:28.

But let’s just say we want to take this text at face value, and—like Paul—go back to the garden to make sense of it. Why are evangelicals not up in arms about women in the workforce or in politics or putting off childbearing for years after they are married?

Now, certainly some are, and it’s a lamentable fact. But I am not saying women only belong in the home; it is a demonic spirit that would insist on oppressing women that way if they have no desire for that life. Also, some women are more qualified for the workforce than their husbands. Additionally, the 19^th amendment is a blessing for women.⁴

We expect Adam and Eve to be an example of life for the whole world when it comes to sexuality, but we don’t preach anywhere near the same bigoted vitriol toward the world when it comes to women in the workforce. Why? It’s basically the same text of Scripture. And if all people are expected to follow the sexual morals from pre-fall, shouldn’t we also preach the “gender-mores” from pre-fall at society as well? If men having sex with men is such a terrible sin because it’s not how God created it to be, shouldn’t women in the workforce also be a terrible sin, because that wasn’t how God created it to be?

We can’t get our own sins—racism, sexism, misogyny, lust, abuse of power—under control, so we point at the world’s preferred sins and scream, “Thou shalt not be homosexual!” even though there are still four fingers declaring us to be sinners just as much, if not more—since we actually know the expectations and often ignore them.⁵ And in the Church, instead of loving people, we argue about women in ministry as if the text isn’t clearly contextual for the first century.

As a Southern Baptist commentator put it in 1992: “Paul’s favorable comments on women as teachers (2 Tim 1:5; Titus 2:4) seem to rule out the likelihood that his intent was to characterize all women as naive and gullible. The Ephesian women may have been credulous pawns in the hands of false teachers, but Paul knew most women were not.”⁶ That statement in itself should have been the end of his discussion. But he keeps going, contradicting what came before: “Paul’s point was that men, including those in Ephesus, are more susceptible to mistake and error when they carelessly surrender leadership to the woman.”⁷ Are we always susceptible to error, or are most women not naïve and gullible? It cannot be both.

Our hermeneutical woes, which lead to applicational atrocities are due to a refusal to dig more deeply than our own comfort level. The Word of God is a sword that is supposed to cut us (Hebrews 4:12). We are supposed to be challenged and changed by it. But we never will be when we interpret things in a way that protects and encourages us while dehumanizing them. And when it comes to women in ministry, the hermeneutic that says they are wrong to pursue pastoral ministry is just as dehumanizing as the hermeneutic that expects all people to subscribe to the Christian view of marriage or else resign themselves to the fires of hell.

And forcing the Christian understanding of marriage on non-Christians does nothing but turn them off to ever considering the Christian message, which—if we fear for the eternal state of their souls—will only guarantee their damnation.

It’s insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again when the results clearly show that it’s not working.

Let’s try the path of love. Love the sinner; don’t worry about the sin (Romans 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). At the end of the day that’s between them and God (Romans 14:4). Trust him to work it out with them. You don’t need to “exercise authority” over them—whether you’re a man or a woman.

In this with you.

Thanks for reading!

---

Notes and References

1. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, PNTC (Grand Rapids, M: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992), 480–481. While I couldn’t find anything specifically about this in monographs that name Rabbinic exegetical practices, ChatGPT directed me to Yeridat HaDorot (“Decline of the Generations”), which is found throughout the Babylonian Talmud: Shabbat 112b; Sotah 49a; Yoma 9b. A synagogue lesson on the topic can be found here: https://images.shulcloud.com/618/uploads/PDFs/200921-TheDeclineoftheGenerationsHaazinu.pdf. ↩︎
2. Baptist Faith & Message 2000, XVIII, paragraph 2, https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/#xviii. ↩︎
3. Wayne Grudem, “Chapter 24: Sin,” Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), sec. C.2.a: “Every part of our being is affected by sin—our intellects, our emotions and desires, our hearts (the center of our desires and decision-making processes), our goals and motives, and even our physical bodies.” ↩︎
4. Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:3–12 would historically validate this claim, since his teaching here sought, like Moses, to grant protections to women (see Morris, Gospel According to Matthew, 483). ↩︎
5. This is literally Paul’s point in Romans 1:18–2:24, but we insist on taking 1:26–27 out of context, rather than applying the whole passage to ourselves first. ↩︎
6. Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 101. Emphasis added. ↩︎
7. Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, 101. Emphasis added. ↩︎

---