William J. Webb
Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Evangelical Theological Society
San Antonio, Texas, November, 2004
A REDEMPTIVE-MOVEMENT HERMENEUTIC:
RESPONDING TO GRUDEM‘S CONCERNS
In this paper I will respond to the primary concerns raised by Wayne Grudem
about a redemptive-movement hermeneutic (herein, RMH). At last November‘s ETS
meeting (2003) Dr. Grudem gave a paper critiquing a RMH as developed within my book
Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis.
Subsequently, Dr. Grudem published a 48-page review article in the 2004 June edition of
JETS.1 These two occasions—Grudem‘s ETS paper last year and his more recent JETS
article—provide the context for this response paper.
I. MISUNDERSTANDING AND (IN TURN)
REPRESENTATION IN GRUDEM‘S CONCERNS
Before engaging some of the actual arguments put forward by Grudem, I would
like to address the matter of misrepresentation. This case of misunderstanding and (the
resultant) misrepresentation is an extremely severe one. I hardly know what to say other
than that his work falls far short of even loose standards for honorable scholarship.
While it is possible for any of us to misunderstand/misrepresent an author at certain select
points, Grudem‘s paper and review article are so full of misrepresentation that I simply
shake my head in wonder and shudder at the prospect of responding to such a tangled
mess.
Wayne Grudem, ―Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic? An
Analysis of William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural
Analysis,‖ JETS 47:2 (June 2004): 299-346.
1
2
Let me illustrate the severity and extent of Grudem‘s misrepresentations in several
different ways. First, the severity of misunderstanding/misrepresentation can be
illustrated through the audience response to Grudem‘s paper at last year‘s ETS meeting.
After delivering his paper, two long-time well-respected ETS members stood up and
voiced their disbelief. One simply responded by saying, ―Dr. Grudem, I too read Slaves,
Women and Homosexuals and the book you just critiqued was not the book I read.‖ A
second gentleman, after acknowledging a minor point of agreement with Grudem (on the
question of layperson accessibility to the hermeneutic), turned to address the audience
and said, ―However, please do not accept Dr. Grudem‘s critique. Read the book yourself.
Just read the book.‖ I could only wish that these two brief counter responses from the
live annual-meeting arena had been published at the end of the JETS article. Second,
permit me to illustrate the degree of Grudem‘s misrepresentation by contrasting his
article with a critique written by Thomas Schreiner. Thomas Schreiner published his
review article on Slaves, Women and Homosexuals in JBMW and in SBJT (2002).2 I later
responded to Schreiner with an article published in EQ (2003).3 While Schreiner did not
agree with major aspects of my writings, he did an admirable job of conveying what my
position was. Schreiner‘s review and our exchange between journals was a healthy and
honorable one. Despite our differences, I have a great deal of respect for Thomas
Schreiner‘s commitment to good research and to a Christianly approach to scholarly
2 Thomas R. Schreiner, ―Review of Slaves, Women and Homosexuals,‖ Journal for Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood 7:1 (Spring 2002): 41-71; idem, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 6:1
(2002): 46-64.
William J. Webb, ―The Limits of a Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: A Focused
Response to Thomas R. Schreiner,‖ Evangelical Quarterly 75 (2003): 327-42.
3
3
dialogue. I can only lament that on the basis of misrepresentation Grudem‘s article is
neither scholarly nor (and I say it with great sadness) Christianly in its approach.
Third, the severity and extent of Grudem‘s misunderstanding/misrepresentation
can be evidenced through a sample list itemizing such occurrences. For a detailed listing
of Grudem‘s misunderstandings/misrepresentations, see Appendix A (below). While I
respond in this appendix to only the first 20 pages of Grudem‘s 48-page article (most
readers will probably be thankful that I stop there), such a listing should provide enough
of a sample to make the point about just how distorted Grudem‘s reading of Slaves,
Women and Homosexuals actually is.
II. BROADER CONTEXT FOR GRUDEM‘S CONCERNS
Before addressing Grudem‘s major concerns, it might also be helpful to set his
concerns within the spectrum of responses to a RMH across the evangelical scholarly
world. What I am speaking of is the varied responses to a RMH that I have encountered
from feedback over the past several years. Basically evangelical scholars within ETS are
split four ways on this issue. (1) View #1: Some evangelical scholars like Grudem would
not want a RMH used (aside from the limited aspect of canonical movement4) on any
Scripture whether OT texts or NT texts. (2) View #2: Some evangelical scholars like
Schreiner are comfortable using a RMH within certain OT texts but see the NT as the
completely finalized form and the ultimate realization of ethic, even its concrete
specifics. (3) View #3: Some evangelical scholars like Bock and Blomberg embrace a
RMH towards both the OT and the NT but would (in the case of the women‘s issue)
4 While Grudem accepts canonical movement (movement between the Old and New
Testament), this is the only aspect of movement meaning that he would deem legitimate. Grudem‘s
approach eliminates from a RMH any foreign-movement or domestic-movement elements as applied to the
OT and the NT.
4
differ on how far to take the movement meaning within our contemporary context. While
open within the women texts to explore how a RMH and cultural/transcultural analysis
might prompt our contemporary applications to be different from the concrete specifics of
the NT text even to the point of an ultra-soft view, they would nonetheless keep the
parameters of this reconfigured social-honor approach within some sort of a hierarchical
perspective. (4) View #4: Finally, some evangelical scholars like myself and perhaps the
majority of authors contributing to Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity
Without Hierarchy5 would adopt a redemptive-movement approach in some form and
apply it to both Old and New Testaments with implications that, along with other
considerations, lead them to an egalitarian position.
Two observations arise from this spectrum. First, a spectrum of responses to a
RMH does not divide evenly along hierarchalist-egalitarian lines. Evangelical scholars in
categories 3 and 4 above (who apply a RMH to both Testaments) are hermeneutically far
closer to one another than they are to others along the spectrum with positions 1 or 2.
That is why I dedicated Slaves, Women and Homosexuals both to a leading egalitarian
and to a leading hierarchalist: ―[This book is] dedicated to F. F. Bruce and Craig L.
Blomberg. Together they typify egalitarians and hierarchalists who share a redemptivemovement hermeneutic. What they have in common far outweighs any differences.‖6
Second, the spectrum also illustrates how Grudem not only disagrees with a RMH but
does so from the most antithetical or ―other end‖ of the spectrum.
5 Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Gordon D. Fee, eds., Discovering Biblical
Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 1-507.
6
William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural
Analysis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 5.
5
Given (a) that a RMH splits the hierarchal camp three ways (a group that Grudem
would like to unite), (b) that Grudem personally holds a view along that spectrum at the
extreme ―other end‖, (c) that I have consciously chosen to use Grudem‘s cherished word
―complementarian‖ (a label which Grudem apparently coined himself) to describe my
own view as that of an ―egalitarian complementarian‖ in contradistinction to that of a
―hierarchical complementarian‖,7 and (d) that Dr. Grudem has served a lengthy tenure as
the presidential voice for CBMW, it should not come as a surprise that his is, of all
reviews that I have received, the most hostile. This context does not excuse his blatant
misrepresentation of my views, but perhaps it helps to at least understand his actions.
III. RESPONSE TO GRUDEM‘S MAJOR CONCERNS
At this juncture we come to Grudem‘s major concerns about a RMH. Were I to
respond to every detail raised by Grudem in his 48-page review I would have to write at
least a 250-page book. I do not intend at this point to write such a book. Consequently, I
will limit my response to those concerns that in some way get voiced within the summary
or conclusion of his article. Furthermore, I will eliminate from this paper any response to
the issue of whether understanding the NT as final revelation precludes Christians from
living out or expressing a greater realization of its ethic beyond certain concrete ―frozen
in time‖ particulars. This debate has been published in SBJT (Schreiner‘s view) and in
EQ (Webb‘s response). Since this exchange on the issue of the limits of a RMH has
7Grudem
was extremely exercised during his 2003 ETS paper last year about my ―wrongly‖
taking the label ―complementarian‖—a word he apparently coined—and using it in relation to my own
position. Along with considerable diatribe, Grudem scolded me for such an action. Despite Grudem‘s
chastening, I remain an egalitarian complementarian and am happy to be one. The unqualified use of the
term ―complementarian‖ is yet one more example of misrepresentation (a ―grand‖ misrepresentation!) of
what the real issue is within the debate. As conveyed within the subtitle of Discovering Biblical Equality
(see above), I would espouse a view known as ―complementarity without hierarchy‖.
6
already been published, I will not take the time here to respond to any concerns, which
fall under that area. This permits me to focus on three primary concerns within Grudem‘s
review, namely, (1) the inaccessibility of a RMH for scholars and laypeople, (2) a denial
of the historical accuracy of the creation accounts, and (3) a denial in principle of the
moral authority of the NT.
1. The Inaccessibility of a RMH for Laypeople and Scholars. In the conclusion of
the article Grudem describes a RMH as ―complex‖.8 This concluding assessment is
derived from an earlier discussion in which he states, ―Webb creates an overly complex
system of interpretation that will require a class of ‗priests‘ who have to interpret the
Bible for us in the light of ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman cultures.‖9 Citing his
lengthy tenure in the academic world, Grudem is convinced that not even ―one percent of
Christians in the world will be able to follow Webb‘s system and tell us what moral
standards we should obey today‖.10 Grudem does not hold out much better hope for
pastors or even for professors with academic doctorates. According to Grudem, the
methodology of comparing the biblical text with ANE and/or GR literature and looking
for movement meaning is simply far too complex.
There are several factors that at least moderate Grudem‘s inaccessibility concern.
All of us in the Christian community from uneducated laypeople to double-doctorate
PhDs in biblical studies often function at a ―default level‖ hermeneutic simply out of
practical necessity. Around our table in the evenings we read Scripture with our children
who range in age from 12 to 18. We do not reference any Greek or Hebrew sources. We
8
Grudem, ―Should We Move Beyond,‖ 346.
9
Ibid., 318-19.
10
Ibid., 318.
7
only use an English Bible or two. Unless there is some topic of considerable complexity
and challenge for interpretation, we generally do not draw into the course of our
discussion ―movement meaning‖ and a full scan of what the ancient historical and social
world was like. We read a Psalm, a biblical narrative, a Gospel, or a letter of Paul and
then we talk about the text. Usually we have plenty to talk about just with understanding
the words on the page along with their ―up and down the page‖ context and their greater
biblical context. Then, of course, a lot of our discussion with teenagers lies in the area of
application.
But, just because probably all Christians use this sort of ―default level‖
hermeneutic in their everyday experience does not mean that it is the only approach to
understanding and applying the Bible. I remember almost twenty years ago reading an
article by Wayne Grudem on the difficult passage of 1 Pet. 3:18-22.11 There were many
perplexing questions within that text: who went and preached, when did whoever go and
preach, to whom did whoever whenever go and preach, and what exactly was said by
whoever whenever they went and preached to whomever? I was extremely impressed not
only by Grudem‘s argumentation but also by the range of materials and language skills
that he had to resource in order to make his case for what the Bible was saying. Aside
from bringing in Greek lexical and grammatical studies, Grudem introduced biblical
theology into the mix and even drew upon documents outside of the Bible, such as 1
Enoch. I could see that there was an incredible range of technical expertise required in
order to research, write and publish such an article. Within the range of a dozen or so
interpretive possibilities for 1 Pet. 3: 18-22 I still tell my students that (from my
Wayne Grudem, ―Christ Preaching Through Noah: 1 Peter 3:19-20 in the Light of Dominant
Themes in Jewish Literature,‖ Trinity Journal 7 NS (1986): 3-31.
11
8
assessment of the exegetical evidence) Grudem‘s development of the Noah position is the
best in print and rivals as an extremely close second to the most persuasive of the twelve
or so options.
One of the very first papers that I heard as a fledging member of ETS (or maybe
as just a visitor) was one that Wayne Grudem gave which scanned over 2,000 uses of the
word kephalē within all kinds of biblical and extrabiblical literature.12 The range of
literature that Grudem surveyed was an amazing tome of ancient-world material that is
not easily accessible to many scholars let alone to laypersons. Frankly, I am thankful to
Wayne Grudem for that initial lexical study and for his follow-up studies. Through his
labors Dr. Grudem has indeed functioned as a gifted ―interpretive priest‖ (to use
Grudem‘s language) in my own life.
I suspect that you know where I am going. Could Wayne Grudem or any one of
us successfully manage to do a mammoth kephalē-type study on every word in every
verse that we sit down and read with our children? I do not think so. That does not mean
that the method of study should not be used simply because for much of our lives we
function out of necessity at a ―default level‖. Dr. Grudem was in all likelihood dependent
upon those who spent endless hours putting together hundreds of ancient documents. In
all likelihood Dr. Grudem was also dependent upon or at least helped by those who had
gone before him and translated certain ones of those ancient documents into English. So,
the matter of scholarly dependency is has multiple levels.
How do I respond to Grudem‘s inaccessibility concern? In short I would say that
a RMH is no better and no worse than any other area of biblical studies where a certain
Wayne Grudem, ―Does Kephalē (‗Head‘) Mean ‗Source‘ or ‗Authority Over‘ in Greek
Literature: A Survey of 2,336 Examples,‖ Trinity Journal NS 6 (1985): 38-59.
12
9
amount of expertise helps us to figure out what the text might be saying. Biblical
scholars have been wonderfully blessed in their understanding of the Bible through a
multitude of overlapping disciplines. Yes, these overlapping disciplines introduce
complexity and a variety of specialties. Obviously, we cannot practically live in this
world for our daily Bible readings. But, if the methodology helps us to tap into an aspect
of meaning within the biblical text that is legitimate, then the journey is worth it
especially when investigating texts that are difficult to understand and apply.
On the other hand, Dr. Grudem might be surprised at just how many laypeople,
pastors and scholars have expressed to me that a RMH and the various cultural/
transcultural criteria have helped them tremendously in understanding the Bible.
Granted, the most difficult part within a RMH is that of developing an understanding of
the ancient world. Grudem is correct here. This is probably not feasible for most
laypersons just as learning Greek and Hebrew is out of the question for most laypeople.
But, masters level students can easily work with secondary sources which have done the
spade work on slavery in the ancient Near Eastern world.13 Once they do sufficient
reading in an area, they generally see the tremendous benefit of a RMH despite having to
do a little work and thinking to get there. Of course, sorting out canonical and domestic
movement meaning is a comparatively easier task than foreign movement meaning.14
Finally, most of the remaining seventeen criteria are reasonably accessible to the
educated layperson, pastors and scholars. What I have discovered (to my delight) is that
even laypeople use many of the criteria almost intuitively in trying to sort through
13 Every student within my hermeneutics course has to work with academic sources
(predominantly well-researched books and monographs) describing the nature of ancient-world slavery.
14
For an explanation of canonical and domestic movement, see Webb, Slaves, Women and
Homosexuals, 74.
10
cultural and transcultural components in various biblical passages. I have simply
catalogued some of the thinking in this area.
So Grudem‘s claim about the inaccessibility of a RMH amounts to little more than
rhetorical hype without a lot of substantive credibility.
Now we turn to the two most damning charges by Grudem. They both get
highlighted in the conclusion of his JETS article. Grudem charges me with a ―denial in
principle of the moral authority of the NT commands‖ and with a system that ―denies the
historical accuracy of the creation account.‖15 Of these two rather weighty charges I will
first respond to the charge of denying the historical accuracy of the creation accounts.
2. Denial of the historical accuracy of the creation accounts. My response to
Grudem‘s charge of denying the historical accuracy of the creation accounts is short and
sweet. To this charge I say, ―Nonsense!‖ At no place do I deny the historical accuracy of
the creation accounts. What I do is work with standard evangelical scholarship in
assessing whether certain components within the creation accounts are God‘s
accommodation to humanity in telling the story or whether they reflect a literal one-toone correspondence with actual reality.
My opening response to Grudem‘s creation-account charge is to say that my
cultural/transcultural analysis of the creation accounts and my primogeniture perspective
is supplemental (not instrumental) to a RMH. If you do not like my approach to the
creation account, then simply place it aside and work with a RMH from your own
alternative creation-account vantage point. Please do not throw out the baby (a RMH)
with the perceived bath water (my ―faulty‖ creation account views). Grudem‘s statement
15
Grudem, ―Should We Move Beyond,‖ 346.
11
that Webb‘s ―system‖16 denies such and such about the creation accounts gives the
misleading impression that this perspective is crucial or necessary to a RMH. He has
obviously missed the whole point of an entire chapter (chapter 8) entitled, ―What if I am
wrong‖. In that chapter I take an alternative approach to the creation-account material
and still whole-heartedly embrace a RMH along with a number of other considerations.
Regardless of Grudem‘s concern at this point, it is by no means lethal to a RMH. The
―system‖ functions very well with or without my creation-account perspectives.
Having raised the point of systemic irrelevance, we can now more accurately
restate Grudem‘s charge. Grudem concludes his article by saying that Webb‘s ―system
denies the historical accuracy of the creation account.‖17 We can now change Grudem‘s
statement to read more accurately, ―although not a necessary component within a RMH
system and Webb himself is willing to set it aside in a default discussion, Webb‘s
tangential treatment of the creation account material is nonetheless problematic in that
[according to Grudem] it ‗denies the historical accuracy of the creation account‘.‖
Let us move on to the charge itself (as alternatively stated above). Grudem‘s
charge that Webb denies the historical accuracy of the creation account is yet another
example of his blatant and inflammatory misrepresentation. The misrepresentation
develops in two ways. On the one hand, to say that I deny the historicity of the creation
account without any qualification, significantly misrepresents what I was doing with the
two criteria in question (criteria #6 and #7). A closer reading will reveal that I am only
talking about certain specific components of the creation account and not the creation
account as a whole. So whatever Grudem might have written, he should have qualified it
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
12
by talking about ―components within (but not the whole of) the creation account.‖ The
lack of any qualification is painfully misleading.
On the other hand, to say that Webb ―denies the historical accuracy of the creation
account‖ also introduces a terrible and substantive misrepresentation. Grudem not only
misrepresents by overstatement (the whole instead of the part), he misrepresents through
choosing particular words—very damaging and destructive words—words that do not
convey the truth. When Grudem chooses to write that Webb ―denies the historical
accuracy of the creation account‖, the corresponding logical inference is that Webb
―affirms the historical inaccuracy of the creation account‖. The one is the logical
counterpart of the other. Yet, neither is true of my own thinking or writing. I can assure
you that Webb does not ―deny the historical accuracy of the creation account‖ nor (by
logical inference) ―affirm the historical inaccuracy of the creation account‖. This is not
true of my position concerning part of (certain components within) or concerning the
whole of (every component within) the creation account. Such wording inspires lynch
mobs and creates great injury for others. But it does little to foster genuine scholarship
that is honorable.
What I do affirm in criteria #6 and 7 on the creation narratives is that certain
components within the creation narratives are more apt than others to be literary and/or
time-displaced in nature. By saying that a component is literary and/or time-displaced is
not (!) saying that the component(s) is historically inaccurate. This is nonsense. What it
is saying is that the component was (perhaps/possibly/probably18) never intended by the
author to make a statement that is historical in nature. In other words, the statement is a-
18
My level of affirmation differs depending upon which component of the creation account is
in question and the varied amount of evidence to make a case one way or the other.
13
historical or non-historical but not ―historically inaccurate‖. (It is simply not possible to
―deny the historical accuracy‖ within any author‘s words if the author never intended
their words to function as a historical statement.) To say that a component within the
creation narratives is literary and/or time-displaced and as such is not intended to make a
historical point (a/non-historical) is not at all to say that this component is ―historically
inaccurate‖! Grudem has confused two concepts, which are worlds apart. It is this very
difference that is at the heart of my corollary (non-systemic) discussion of the creation
account. Since Grudem eradicates this difference, he radically misrepresents my
argument. He has successfully created a fictional book that I never wrote.
Let me illustrate what is meant by ―literary‖ and/or ―time-displaced‖ which in no
way conveys that the element is ―historically inaccurate‖. Perhaps the most
straightforward example within the creation account is the fact that Adam and Eve are
recorded within the biblical text to be speaking Hebrew. Possibly this is what actually
happened in the garden. Maybe they did speak Hebrew. All things are possible with
God. But, the only problem with this Hebrew-in-the-garden scenario is that the Hebrew
language did not develop until much later. So there is a high degree of probability that
the Hebrew speech recorded ―on the page‖ of Scripture is a non-historical element or, to
put it another way, simply a literary/time-displaced element within the narrative. The
author does not intend to make a statement of a historical nature by placing this timedisplaced component within the Eden/garden story. As another example, many
evangelical scholars (I suspect perhaps even a majority of scholars within ETS) would for
a number of text-based reasons not take the days of creation as literally happening within
a seven-day week even though the text clearly presents the framework as a seven day
14
(sunrise/sunset) period. The reasons for taking this chronological and day-content
component as more poetic or literary (and not strictly historical) have been articulated by
some of the best evangelical OT scholars.19 While an absolute case cannot be made, the
seven-day framework may well be a literary and time-displaced way in which God
accommodates the story to his audience. I am inclined to think that the same is true of
Adam being fashioned from clumps of ground. Given that this sort of ―dirt/clay
fashioning‖ was a recurring theme in ANE cosmogony (ANE creation accounts) and that
modern science shows us the amazing complexity of the human being (just spend a week
or two reading about the Humane Genome Project20) in all likelihood God may be
communicating the mechanics of creation with considerable accommodation. The author
may simply be saying that Adam was created as a (divine) potter would fashion a vessel
out of clay. Possibly the author is also saying that humans are the earth-bound creations
of Yahweh. Humans are in no way deities such as Pharaoh was within Egyptian
mythology. By saying that these three items in the creation account—Hebrew speech, the
seven-day framework, and literal composition from the ground—may be literary and not
intended to make a point about historical realities does not at all say that they are
historically inaccurate! Grudem‘s charge is terribly misleading. I do not hold to the
historical inaccuracy of any portion of the creation narrative as Grudem alleges.21
19 For example, see Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 73-77; Bruce K. Waltke, ―The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One,‖ Crux
27:4 (1991): 2-10.
20Http://www.ornl.gov/
TechResources/Human_Genome/home.html.
21 Grudem‘s creation-account charge betrays something of a selective prejudice. Why does
Grudem select my work on the creation account as the target of his trumped-up erroneous charge? Why for
instance has Grudem not written a scathing review that charges an evangelical scholar such as Bruce
Waltke (a hierarchalists!) with ―denying the historical accuracy of the creation account‖? After all, Waltke
makes an excellent case for taking the seven days of creation (clearly in the text) as a literary entity without
any one-to-one historical correspondence. So, why has Grudem not sought out other ETS member‘s
15
Within the creation accounts it is likely that we have a significantly
accommodated portrait of the events of creation. The actual mechanics of creation were
probably much greater and far more complex than we could ever imagine or even
understand with our finite human limitations. Frankly Grudem‘s approach to the creation
account disturbs me because it lacks even an ounce of hermeneutical humility. His
methodology declaratively pronounces with absolute certainty an interpretive assumption
about authorial intent with no margins for scholarly reasoning about which elements
within the story are time-displaced and which are not. While surely not intended by
Grudem, his somewhat pre-packaged approach also has the very real potential of
shrinking the profound grandeur of God and the wondrous creation process within
Genesis 1–2 into a moment-by-moment, diary-type account with very little room for
divine accommodation.
3. Denying/Nullifying the Moral Authority of the New Testament. Early within his
critique Grudem charges that ―Webb‘s redemptive-movement hermeneutic nullifies in
principle the moral authority of the entire NT‖ (p. 306). Again in his conclusion Grudem
reiterates this core accusation about ―a denial in principle of the moral authority of the
NT commands‖, which in his view places a RMH outside the bounds of an acceptable
evangelical hermeneutic (p. 346).
At the outset I want to thank Grudem for at least making some attempt to qualify
the charge. He does say that it is a ―denial in principle of the moral authority of the NT
commands‖ (italics mine). Given Grudem‘s penchant for misrepresentation though
writings and made a similar case about scholarship not connected to a discussion of gender? I can only
reason that it has not so much to do with an interest in sorting through and finding time-displaced elements
within the creation account (for surely they are there), as it has to do with possible implications that such an
approach might have for the gender debate.
16
unqualified statements elsewhere in the article (where I have clearly qualified them), I
guess that I should be thankful when a qualification does arise.
In keeping with Grudem‘s qualification, let me state that nowhere did I ever
indicate any intent to ―deny‖ ―nullify‖ or ―undermine‖ the moral authority of the New
Testament or the moral authority of the Bible as a whole. In fact, the exact opposite is
true. I have nothing but a growing conviction and commitment to affirming the moral
authority of the New Testament. So, what Grudem is actually talking about is an
inference that he (!) has drawn concerning my methodology. I do not wish to descend
into the pit of editorial nitpicking. But, perhaps a better expression to make Grudem‘s
point would have been to say that Webb‘s methodology ―in effect (though not in intent)‖
nullifies/denies the moral authority of the New Testament. The expression ―in principle‖
here might convey the wrong idea to some readers that Webb‘s hermeneutic nullifies the
moral authority of the NT in principle but not in practice. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I
would think that Grudem intends to say that a RMH has damaging effects concerning a
Christian‘s actual practice of certain NT commands. Since we clearly differ in how one
lives out the Bible in practice, given our differing non-movement (Grudem) and
movement (Webb) approaches, this inclusion of practice within Grudem‘s charge seems
like a correct understanding of Grudem‘s intent.
So I will proceed with an understanding of Grudem‘s ―denial of moral authority‖
charge as follows: Webb’s RMH methodology in effect (though not in intent) denies the
moral authority of the New Testament with damage at both the level of theory and
practice. The ―denial of moral authority‖ charge makes good sense once one understands
from Dr. Grudem‘s perspective how it is that such a denial takes place. The crux of that
17
which nullifies biblical authority is, as succinctly stated by Grudem, that ―the standard is
no longer what the NT says, but rather the point toward which some scholar thinks the
Bible was moving‖ (italics his).22 Once again within the article‘s conclusion Grudem
reiterates this perspective, namely, that a RMH ―nullifies in principle the moral authority
of the entire NT and replaces it with the moral authority of a ‗better ethic‘, an ethic that
Webb claims to be able to discover through a complex hermeneutical process entirely
foreign to the way God intended the Bible to be read, understood, believed and obeyed‖
(italics mine).23 In sum, Grudem supports his charge of ―denying the moral authority of
the NT‖ by his assessment that I have replaced ―what the NT says‖ or ―what the Bible
says‖ with meaning that is entirely foreign to what it actually says.
Let me respond by saying that, if Grudem is correct in his replaced-meaning
thesis, then he has every right to charge me with denying the moral authority of the NT.
For surely, if I have taken what the Bible says and replaced it with something foreign to
what the Bible says, then indeed I have sunk to the level of denying biblical authority. In
other words, I agree with the logical construct (premise to conclusion) of Grudem‘s
charge. If I have created some kind of ―ultimate ethic‖ that is indeed foreign to the
intended meaning of the biblical text, then his rather damning charge has substance.
However, Grudem‘s ―denial of biblical authority‖ charge fails if his assertion that
I have replaced ―what the Bible/NT says‖ with something foreign is a false assertion. In
fact, this is exactly where Grudem‘s charge falters—it falters at the level of establishing
that his own non-movement understanding of the Bible‘s words is the correct
understanding of ―what the Bible says‖! Grudem‘s charge likewise falters at the level of
22
Grudem, ―Should We Move Beyond,‖ 306.
23
Ibid., 346.
18
establishing that my movement understanding of the Bible‘s words is indeed not the
correct understanding of ―what the Bible says‖!
Unfortunately, Grudem provides very little hermeneutical evidence to establish
his assertion. It is almost humorous to read Grudem‘s sample list of biblical commands
from the text of Ephesians.24 He does so to show that hermeneutics is as easy as reading
the words on the page and then doing what the Bible says. There is no need for a RMH.
What is delightful within this development of the biblical text is (a) he chooses a very
easy section of biblical commands, (b) he skips over various commands in the sample
text that have some significant cultural components within them, and (c) he betrays a very
mechanical approach to the Bible in his zealous affinity for formal commands (as if
somehow the other ninety percent of the biblical text does not carry imperatival force
simply because it is not stated in that fashion)! Am I persuaded by the hermeneutical
evidence that Grudem offers in terms of how he treats the biblical text? No, not in the
least.
Let me turn our attention to a more worthy example for discussion, namely, the
―beating slaves‖ text(s) found in the Bible. For instance, the text of Exodus 21:20-21
reads, ―If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct
result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or
two, since the slave is his property‖ (NIV). One might paraphrase ―what the Bible says‖
in Exodus 21:20-21 as follows: ―a slave owner is in (some undefined) trouble if he kills a
slave during a beating but otherwise the slave owner is legally free to beat the ‗living day
24
Ibid., 320.
19
lights‘ out of a slave, provided the slave is able to get up after a day or two.‖25 This text
along with some other slave-beating texts serves as a good sample.
Let me place our hermeneutical discussion onto a university campus where you,
as a proponent of biblical ethics, are debating social ethics with someone who is not in
any way fond of the Bible. Sometimes I get this privilege whether by direct exchange or
indirect. It provides a delightful context for issues in social ethics and hermeneutical
discussions. Inevitably, my opponent will pick up on this slavery beating text (or a
number of other such difficult texts) and ram it in my face with a statement such as ―You
believe in a God who would say it is okay (no judicial recrimination) for beating a slave
within a hairsbreadth of their life provided they could walk after a day or two? That‘s the
God you believe in? That‘s the Bible you follow?‖
Before I go on with how I would reply in this university-campus situation, permit
me to have some fun with a conjectured Grudem-style of response.26 I will draw from the
25
There is nothing within the NT that would automatically or directly rescind the biblical
authority and ease-of-applicability of this OT verse (Exodus 21:20-21) if a NT slave owner were looking
for explicit advice from God about how to interact with disobedient slaves.
26I
will place my response in a more formal Q &A. Question: CBMW scholars will frequently
make the distinction between biblical commands that ―regulate‖ vs. biblical commands that ―perpetuate‖.
Since the Bible makes no explicit commands to perpetuate slavery, ―You shall not remove the order of
slavery from society,‖ we are thus free to drift away from that sociological institution. It is okay to
discontinue slavery. Do CBMW statements about commands that ―regulate but not perpetuate‖ help us sort
out a social ethic for today that is based upon the women texts and/or the slavery texts in the Bible?
Answer: This ―regulate‖ vs. ―perpetuate‖ distinction does more to hide than help the problem. The
distinction is built on several false assumptions. (1) This distinction assumes that regulation/perpetuation
are the exclusive ideologies being communicated through biblical commands. Unfortunately, it‘s not that
simple. There are tacit values being communicated about people through all biblical commands, not simply
a communication about one of these two categories. (2) This approach assumes that biblical scholars can
readily and easily make a regulate-vs-perpetuate distinction. Perhaps for some CBMW scholars this is a
crystal clear task. However, herein lies the problem. How do we tell if a biblical command was simply
given to ―regulate and not perpetuate‖? I personally think it is much more fruitful to ask what are the
cultural/transcultural components within any biblical command rather than to place the command (as a
whole) into either a ―regulation‖ category or a ―perpetuation‖ category. But, if one is stuck with these
categories of regulation and perpetuation, how do we know that patriarchy commands within Scripture are
not simply a regulation of an existing form and not a perpetuation of an existing form? The fact of the
matter is that we do not know. Only through a series of cultural/transcultural assessments can we come
20
repertoire of classic Grudem-type replies that he passes off on a Christian audience. Here
we go. WG: ―Well, you see Dr. Skeptic [herein, SK:] what you do not realize is that
these commands were simply given to regulate a sinful world. They do not really say
anything about God‘s character or anything about what God would even really want
within a social ethic. For that matter they have nothing to say about an ultimate ethic in
the area of slavery. These beating texts were simply given to regulate slavery but in no
way given to perpetuate slavery.‖ Professor SK: ―Dr. Grudem, it seems to me that in
any society the beating of slaves would go a long way to perpetuate the social institution
of slavery. A good whipping would do a lot to keep slaves in line. How do you make
this fine-tuned distinction between which commands simply regulate something and
which commands are intended to perpetuate something? Since this distinction is not
stated in the Bible itself, it seems to me like you are importing meaning into the Bible
that is foreign to the biblical text. Furthermore, even if this distinction could be
established, why does your God not care about the nature of the social ethic that he
close to making a case either way about slavery, gender hierarchy, or a hundred other issues. The statement
―regulate but not perpetuate‖ simply states conclusions. It does nothing to persuade a person, such as
myself, to accept the CBMW view. Unfortunately, the regulate/perpetuate expression makes readers think
that it embodies convincing evidence for a conclusion rather than simply stating a conclusion itself. (3) The
―regulate but not perpetuate‖ approach assumes that by invoking this label it somehow absolves Christians
of the need for critical thinking with respect to the on-the-page words of the biblical text that reflect less
than an ultimate ethic. By citing this expression CBMW proponents feel free to walk away from the
hermeneutical implications coming from the type of material found in the slavery texts. (4) Such an
approach assumes—again a very formalistic approach to the words of the Bible—that because we do not
have a command to ―not do something‖ or ―do something‖ that such automatically precludes our
contemporary application. Because there is no command in the Bible (argument from silence!) prohibiting
the abolition of slavery we should feel okay about its demise. This makes no sense. There are no explicit
commands in the Bible about patriarchy as an institution any more than there are for slavery as an
institution. We do not get any commands that explicitly say, ―You shall never abandon the institution of
patriarchy as it governs how men and women are to relate.‖ The lack of such formal commands says
nothing about what we need to figure out. (5) Such an approach assumes that no hermeneutical lessons can
be learned from comparing the slavery texts with the women texts. In other words, it assumes that we do
not need a RM hermeneutic in the women‘s texts since they are in the ―perpetuate‖ category while the
slavery texts are in this ―regulate but not perpetuate‖ category. On the contrary, it is the conviction of a
growing number of hierarchical complementarians that Christians need a RM hermeneutic for applying
both of these (women and slavery) texts regardless of our hierarchical or egalitarian labels and outcomes.
21
creates within these various so-called regulatory commands?‖ WG: ―Take a course or
two with me and you will be able to readily determine which commands of God simply
regulate a human action and which commands perpetuate an action. I can assure you
that I do not have 18 criteria for establishing this hermeneutical distinction; it only takes
me 3 or 4 criteria. Anything you do not like within the regulatory commands of the Bible
is not really a reflection upon God and his character as the author but upon the sinfulness
of the world to which he is writing. God is ethically free to say anything about the human
treatment of other humans within these sorts of regulatory commands. The ethical
problem is ours not his.‖
WG: ―Furthermore Prof. Skeptic, and you may not fully understand this because
you are not a believer, Christians are no longer under the OT law and so Exodus 21 does
not have any binding covenant authority over our lives. We are supposed to live under
the new covenant, not the old. Your question about Exodus 21 is somewhat irrelevant.‖
Dr. SK: ―But what about Christians within the early church. The NT nowhere tells them
to stand up for or to fight for the abolition of slavery. Dr. Grudem, are you trying to tell
me that the text of Exodus 21 would convey no direction whatsoever for a first-century
Christian trying to figure out if it is okay to beat his slave and how far it is acceptable to
take a beating without incurring God‘s displeasure? I find that beyond the realm of
plausible thinking.‖
Now let me illustrate the same topic of conversation between Dr. Skeptic and
myself in this secular university setting. After reading the beating-slaves text of Exodus
21:20-21, Dr. SK asks: ―That‘s the God you believe in? That‘s the Bible you follow?‖
WW: ―I want to say Dr. Skeptic that I too struggle with this text. So, I very much
22
empathize with your dismay over finding such a verse in sacred Scripture. Nevertheless,
I do not think you read the text correctly.‖ SK: ―What do you mean? I read the text
straight out of the Bible from the NIV translation.‖ WW: ―Yes, I heard the words you
read. They were the words on the page all right. But I would suggest that we should not
read the Bible or any ancient historical document for that matter with simply an ―on the
page‖ approach. Meaning in any ancient document involves far more than simply
understanding its words in isolation as they exist on the page. In fact, meaning is far
more than setting words on the page in the context of other words on the page (although
this helps). Words must be read within the ancient historical and ancient social context
in which they were written. It is only then that we discover an important component of
meaning that we might call, ‗movement meaning‘!‖
At this juncture of being offered an opportunity to address hermeneutics and
understanding ancient texts, I generally talk about how we need to read the slave-beating
text of Exodus 21 within its ancient historical and social context. If we are going to read
the biblical text with all of its intended meaning (and not lose out upon an important
component of meaning), the text must be read within the ancient-world context. In the
ANE setting there was nothing holding back a master from beating a slave to death if
they wished. The only consideration, which curtailed such a brutal act, is the obvious
loss of the slave‘s productivity. Yet, such utilitarian value often gave way to making a
point to the larger slave community. Beating a slave to death was not an unheard of
practice and some masters exercised such rights in order to send a clear message to the
rest of their slave holdings. Now one reads the text of Exodus 21:20-21 in that ancient
23
social context and you have to say, ―Wow!” Within that kind of ―beating slaves‖ social
environment there is at least some movement meaning within the Bible.
To this slavery picture one must add another group of slave-beating texts within
the Bible (Exodus 21:26-27; 27:3-4) that say, if in beating a slave, the slave is injured
physically—he looses a tooth, an eye, an ear, etc.—then the slave must go free. Once
again, the current of meaning runs far deeper than an isolated understanding of words on
the page. We must read these slave beating texts within the ancient world context where
masters often in punishing slaves intentionally left physical mutilation in all kinds of
horrendous ways in order to make a lasting visual statement to the rest of the slave
community and to give the disobedient slave a perpetual reminder of something similar or
worse that might happen in the future. Within this kind of a harsh ancient world setting
one again senses an awesome aspect of movement meaning. Yes, the Bible allows
beatings but, if any physical mutilation occurs, such mutilation meant that the slave went
free! This redemptive-movement meaning derived from the broader ANE context to the
Bible can be captured in one word, “Wow!” These words on the page not only regulate
social behavior (as Grudem contends), they do much more. They provide a crucial
element of movement meaning within them. In turn, this movement meaning captures
the redemptive spirit of the biblical text.
We could go on with the text of Deut. 23:15-16 (cf. Isa. 16:3-4) which provides
safety and refuge to slaves that run away from foreign countries and forbids returning
them to their country of origin. This might sound rather ho-hum as isolated words on the
page (especially if we are unaware of our abolitionist assumptions when engaging such a
text). But, reading this biblical text within the ancient-world environment yields for us
24
the depth of its movement meaning. In the ancient world runaway slaves were sought for
bounty. Captured slaves were at times executed in a brutal fashion along with their
families and/or accomplices. The code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for
even aiding and abetting a runaway slave. Most nations held extradition treaties. In a
radical departure from these prevalent views, Israel became a safety zone or refuge for
foreign runaway slaves (Deut 23:15-16; cf. Isa 16:3-4). I read the Bible within this
ancient-world environment and, once again, I have to say, ―Wow! Redemptivemovement meaning.‖ That‘s my God! He is concerned about social ethics beyond
simply ―regulating‖ a social institution. He is concerned to move a complex, muchentrenched social institution with significant incremental steps towards an ultimate ethic.
It is the movement meaning within the slavery texts themselves that serves as the wellrooted connection in meaning between the biblical text and an ultimate ethic.
From this discussion about the slavery texts I would simply summarize the
following hermeneutical points:27
1. A less-than-ultimate ethic in the treatment of slaves is a significant part of our
Bible.
2. A static or non-movement approach to Scripture does not resolve the problems
presented in various ―not so pretty‖ texts.
3. A RMH champions movement meaning—foreign, domestic, and canonical—as
a legitimate component of meaning in biblical words.
4. Movement or redemptive-spirit meaning is crucial: it should shape the course of
our contemporary appropriation of the Bible in a way that often carries us
beyond the bound-in-time components of the biblical text.
5. By adopting this application approach to the Bible‘s redemptive spirit we must
therefore in one sense go beyond the Bible (beyond certain frozen-in-time
particulars) but we do so as the only faithful way in which to stay within the
27 I have argued these points in several sources beyond Slaves, Women and Homosexuals.
William J. Webb, ―The Limits of a Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: A Focused Response to Thomas
R. Schreiner,‖ Evangelical Quarterly 75 (2003): 327-42; idem, ―A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic:
The Slavery Analogy,‖ in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, Ronald W.
Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Gordon D. Fee, eds. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004),
382-400.
25
Bible (within its redemptive-spirit meaning). Those Christians who in their
application are unwilling to go beyond the Bible’s concrete specificity actually
end up being unfaithful to and unable to stay within the Bible’s redemptive
spirit.
6. While moving beyond certain concrete specifics in the biblical text (a ―frozen in
time‖ ethic), only a RM hermeneutic permits us to stay within the Bible at the
application stage where we attempt to continue fulfilling its redemptive-spirit
meaning within our contemporary social context.
7. Only a RM hermeneutic permits us to solidly tie an ultimate ethic of the
abolition of slavery into the textual meaning that is discovered within the slavery
texts themselves—even the slave beating texts of Scripture!28
So let us return to Grudem‘s charge that Webb‘s RMH in principle denies the
moral authority of the New Testament. As earlier highlighted in his article, Grudem‘s
―denial of biblical authority‖ charge is based upon his perception that I have replaced
―what the NT says‖ and ―what the Bible says‖ with meaning that is entirely foreign to
what it says. I think that Grudem is wrong. Absolutely wrong. There is a solid link in
meaning between the underlying redemptive spirit (movement meaning) and an ultimate
ethic that is hardly foreign to what the Bible says. The better social ethic is not ―Webb‘s
better ethic‖ (contra Grudem) but an expression of an ethic that is deeply rooted within
the Bible. It is the Bible‘s ethic, not mine! As noted above, the movement meaning
within even the slave-beating texts of Scripture is not ―foreign meaning‖ (as Grudem
supposes) but ―integral meaning‖ in the formation and realization of an abolitionist ethic.
28 It is the redemptive-movement meaning within the very slave beating texts themselves that
ultimately should move us to ban the beating of slaves (in seeming contradiction to the concrete specificity
of the text); it is the redemptive-movement meaning in the broader slave texts themselves, which speak of
owning other human beings, that should cause us to prohibit slavery entirely (in seeming contradiction to
the concrete, on-the-page specificity of the text).
26
IV. CHARGING GRUDEM WITH ―DENYING IN PRINCIPLE
THE MORAL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE‖?
Some ironies lie very deep. From my vantage point, I find it vastly ironic that
someone who ―stomps all over‖ the ―Wow‖ meaning of Scripture, who diminishes
wonder and greatness and power within a biblical ethic, and who attempts to eradicate
any redemptive-movement meaning for shaping contemporary application should charge
me with undermining or denying in principle the biblical authority of Scripture. This is
profoundly ironic. In my view Grudem has this charge backwards. It is those who
squash the redemptive-spirit meaning of the biblical text who are the ones ―in effect
(though not in intent)‖ denying the biblical authority of both the Old and New Testament.
Do I wish to formally charge Grudem with denying the authority of the Bible?
No, I do not. There are two reasons why I would never think of launching such a charge
against Dr. Grudem. First, I respect Dr. Grudem‘s confession and intent to honor biblical
authority in his hermeneutic. I think that his intent is genuine. ―Intention‖ plays a key
role along side of ―act‖ in shaping and mitigating any ethical assessment. I am absolutely
convinced that Grudem‘s intentions are good and that he is attempting to be faithful to the
OT and NT moral authority to the very best of his knowledge and reasoning.
Second, I would never think of bringing such a charge against Dr. Grudem
because in so doing I would reveal the height of arrogance about the unquestionable
correctness of my own position. This side of heaven I am happy to embrace a RMH. I
think it is a wonderful hermeneutic and is, at least in broad terms, a correct one. But, I
am not so arrogant about its correctness that I would lash out at those who differ with me
and charge them undermining the authority of the Bible. To equate my particular,
27
individual understanding of the Bible with the authority of the Bible itself has to be the
height of interpretive presumption and arrogance. I simply would not do it.
In light of these two reasons why I would never charge Dr. Grudem with ―denying
in principle the moral authority of the Bible‖, I would kindly ask that you/Dr. Grudem
treat me in the same manner of Christian respect and honor with which I am willing to
treat you. I would ask that you see my confession and commitment to upholding biblical
authority as genuine. I would also ask that you ponder the assumed absolute correctness
of your own hermeneutical ―system‖ that has to be unquestioningly valid with no margin
of error in order to make your (secondary and inferred) charges. Given that there are
many scholars within the Evangelical Theological Society who embrace a RMH and
given that even within the hierarchical camp itself there is a spectrum of three responses
to a RMH (yours being the most negative), I would ask you not so much to reconsider
your hermeneutic as to at least reconsider whether or not in making these charges against
me you have moved to an affirmation of your own correctness that wanders perilously
into the fields of personal absolutism.
Accordingly, I would ask Dr. Grudem to consider publishing an apology in JETS
for the numerous misrepresentations of my views and a retraction of your charge of
denying in principle of NT/biblical authority. In the interests of honorable Christian
scholarship and on the basis of the two reasons mentioned above I thank you for giving
serious reflection to this matter of apology and retraction.
V. MY OWN FAILINGS
In a paper of this nature it might be appropriate if I highlight some of my own
failings in the complex process of communication. Upon reflecting at length upon Dr.
28
Grudem‘s review article and upon constructive feedback from others, I have come to
realize that there are several areas in which I need to grow and develop. I will highlight
three areas where my own failings are fairly evident: language, visuals, and insufficient
examples.
1. Language. The choice of language is important. Sometimes I have added to
the confusion not because of the lack of qualifiers, but because at times my writing has
lacked counter-balancing language. For instance, it is hard to talk about ―going beyond
the Bible‘s concrete specificity‖ in apply a RMH. Some like Grudem are apt to strip
away qualifiers and simply paint my view as “going beyond the Bible”. This is of course
not what I am attempting to say. But, I have discovered that certain catchword counterbalancing language is often needed in order for readers to see the weight and importance
of those annoying little qualifiers. In other words, in addition to the qualifiers like
―concrete specificity‖ and ―on the page‖ understanding, I need to add counter-balancing
statements about the counter-balancing idea of “staying within the Bible” in order to raise
something of a paradox: we need to ―go beyond‖ the Bible in order to ―stay within‖ the
Bible. It is the ―staying within‖, even though achieved through an aspect of ―going
beyond‖, which is most important to me because it is there ―within the Bible‖ (not with
Webb!) that an ultimate ethic lies. Staying within is the hermeneutical end point; going
beyond is simply a means to achieving that end point of application-type meaning. It is
not a journey out of the Bible, but one that leads us deeper into the Bible.
I am thankful to Gary Deddo (IVP editor) for helping me with language as much
as he did in bringing Slaves, Women and Homosexuals to publication. Nevertheless, it is
obvious that I need to continue growing in this area.
29
2. Diagrams/visuals. The visual display of ideas is also very important. In a
recent (2004) publication with a summary of a redemptive-movement hermeneutic I
changed my visual/diagram about the hermeneutic to the following:29
The
XYZ
Principle
(redemptive)
X
somewhat
redemptive
Original
Culture
(Ancient Near Eastern and/or
Greco-Roman culture)
?
(regressive)
“on the page”
meaning of words
“redemptive spirit”
meaning of words
(isolated from historical
& canonical contexts)
(movement meaning based on
historical & canonical contexts)
Bible
Y
(the concrete words
of the text; an ethic
―frozen in time‖)
more
redemptive
Bible
Z
Our
Culture
Ultimate
Ethic
(where it happens to
reflect a better ethic
than Y)
(reflected in
the spirit of
the biblical text)
If one looks at page 32 of Slaves, Women and Homosexuals and compares the
diagram above, you will notice some significant changes. My ideas have not changed but
I have seen from constructive feedback some helpful ways of improving what I am trying
to say.
3. Insufficient Examples. I have been asked by many readers to provide more
examples to help see how a RMH and cultural/transcultural analysis works out in process.
29
See Webb, ―A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: The Slavery Analogy,‖ 383.
30
Here I can only say that I have two books in the works, which will address this
deficiency. One of the books deals with tough texts related to sex, marriage and family;
the other looks at various difficult texts on other aspects of public and social life. These
two books are forthcoming in the next one to two years. In the meantime, I have a
periodical article that will be published this fall/Dec. (2004) on how the interface between
ancient (and modern) embryology helps us develop an application of 1 Corinthians 11 for
contemporary Christians. This article will provide yet another example of how presentday application has to go beyond in order to stay within Scripture. It is an article
designed to speak to both hierarchical and egalitarian camps (not egalitarians
exclusively). I trust this article will provide a sample of things to come later.
VI. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Wayne Grudem has severely misunderstood and (in turn)
misrepresented my views. His descriptions of a redemptive-movement approach to the
Bible are inaccurate and misleading. A redemptive-movement hermeneutic fully affirms
the authority of Scripture (both OT and NT) and assists the people of God in cogently
applying the Bible to the issues we face in our world today.
31
Appendix A
A Sample List of
Grudem‘s Misunderstandings/Misrepresentations
&
Webb‘s Brief Response
1. Grudem (p. 299, title): Webb‘s thesis is that we need to ―move beyond the New Testament to a
better ethic.‖ Webb: The ambiguity and lack of qualification within Grudem‘s title wrongly suggests that
with a redemptive-movement hermeneutic (herein, RMH) we move beyond the NT to a better ethic that is
external to the NT ethic or that the ―better ethic‖ is not the NT ethic itself. I do not hold this nor do I argue
for this. Rather, I hold that we need to move beyond the certain ―on the page‖ concrete specificity within
both the OT and NT to a better realization of the Bible‘s ethic and a greater fulfillment of Scripture‘s
redemptive spirit. Using a RMH produces an ultimate ethic that is rooted within, not external to, the Bible.
2. Grudem (p. 299, para. 1): ―How can Christians know which parts of the Bible are ‗culturally
relative‘ and which parts . . . .‖ (italics mine). Webb: The lack of precision within Grudem‘s statement can
easily infer that I would see certain sections (chapters or verses) of the Bible as culturally relative and other
sections of the Bible as transcultural. But, this is not the case. I purposefully never speak of certain ―parts
of the Bible‖ as cultural or transcultural. What I do hold is that all texts have transcultural components
within them and that some texts have cultural components along side of the transcultural components. But,
these cultural and transcultural components appear together within the very same text.
3. Grudem (p. 299, para. 2): ―William Webb has provided an entirely new approach . . .‖ (italics
mine). Webb: Grudem not only claims that my views on hermeneutics are ―new‖ but that they are so
much so that they can be described as ―entirely new‖. This distortion of historical reality is so utterly
absurd that it is almost humorous. In a recent ETS paper Carl Sanders (a hierarchical complementarian!),
documented that the over three quarters of the criteria that actually referenced the slavery texts in SW&H
had historical precedent within the slavery debates of the past. Sanders‘ conclusion is that Grudem‘s
charge of novelty (an ―entirely new‖ hermeneutic) is simply incorrect. Carl Sanders, ―The 19 th Century
Slave Debate: An Example of Proto-Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutics?‖ (paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Antonio, Texas, November 8, 2004). Dr. Sanders has
kindly agreed to make his paper available upon email request ([email protected]).
4. Grudem (p. 299, para. 4): ―But even these NT moral commands were not God‘s ‗ultimate
ethic‘.‖ Webb: This is a terrible distortion of what I hold. Yes, in both its commands and non-command
instructions (contra Grudem‘s fixation on formal commands) the NT contains an ultimate ethic. But, that
ultimate ethic in some texts (not all texts) is expressed within the redemptive-movement and/or
transcultural component of meaning within the text.
5. Grudem (p. 300, para. 1): ―Webb uses eighteen criteria to attempt to discover the direction of
God‘s ‗redemptive movement‘ in three specific test cases . . .‖ Webb: A number of the criteria are simply
for sorting through cultural/transcultural components of meaning within any particular text. Certainly these
criteria work in conjunction with those assessing redemptive movement. But, not all 18 criteria help us
―discover the direction of God‘s ‗redemptive movement‘‖.
6. Grudem (p. 300, para. 2): ―Webb never argues that homosexual conduct is wrong because the
NT says so and the NT is God’s final revelation to us in this age . . .‖ (italics mine). Webb: The degree of
misrepresentation here is horrendous. Grudem clearly fails to understand the process of
cultural/transcultural analysis. Yes, I do argue that homosexual conduct is wrong ―because the NT says
so‖! The substantive question, however, is this: what is the meaning involved in what ―the NT says‖. I
argue that there exists a component of redemptive-movement meaning within the homosexuality texts (OT
and NT) so that, when the ―OT and/or NT says so‖ it does so with an element of ―movement meaning‖ that
32
heads in a more conservative direction relative to the broader ancient cultures. Contra Grudem, this
element of movement meaning is a significant part of what Scripture says. Furthermore, I do hold that the
NT is God‘s final revelation. The problem is simply that Grudem has invoked his own assumption that
final revelation must be equated in a one-to-one fashion with final realization of ethic (in terms of
fulfillment of an expanding or greater fulfillment of the redemptive spirit within the biblical text). Yes, the
NT provides us with God‘s final revelation and with God‘s ultimate ethic. But, living out that ultimate
ethic in today‘s context (―application‖) in certain cases requires that we take the redemptive spirit of the
text to a fuller realization.
7. Grudem (p. 301, para. 1): ―In contrast to many egalitarians who have argued that the NT does
not teach that wives should be subject to their husbands, or that only men should be elders, Webb takes a
different approach: he believes that the NT does teach these things for the culture in which the NT was
written, but that in today‘s culture the treatment of women is an area in which . . . [a fuller realization of
ethic is possible]‖ (italics mine). Webb: Yes, my approach differs with some egalitarians who rely more
heavily on certain lexical conclusions for coming to an egalitarian position. Nevertheless, Grudem‘s
rhetoric about ―what the NT teaches‖ is a highly distorted presentation of my views.
8. Grudem (p. 301, para. 1): ―a better ethic than the one expressed in the isolated words of the text
is possible‖ (italics mine). Webb: Grudem‘s has juxtaposed this ―better ethic‖ quotation within his own
sentence about ―what the NT teaches‖ so that it gives the (wrong) impression that the better/ultimate ethic
is somehow different from or foreign to the ethic of the NT. This is one of the grandest of all distortions
within Grudem‘s review. It is a distortion within his title (cf. point #1 above) and one of his ―charges‖
against me that I interact with at some length within the body of this paper (see above).
9. Grudem (p. 301, para. 5): ―Webb‘s trajectory hermeneutic nullifies in principle the moral
authority of the entire New Testament . . .‖ (italics his). Webb: This charge is built upon several key
misunderstandings. See my response to this charge within the paper.
10. Grudem (p. 302, para. 1): ―Since we Christians today are also in the new covenant age . . . this
command [children obey your parents] is binding on us today.‖ In context Grudem is saying that in
contrast to ―we Christians‖ Webb would not take the new covenant as the basis for this command. Webb:
In direct contradiction to what Grudem fictitiously postulates (!) I would take all NT commands as binding
authority on Christians because of their covenant relationship to God within the new covenant.
Nevertheless, that does not free us from the more difficult task of sorting out what within those commands
(and other binding non-command portions of Scripture) are cultural and time-locked elements of meaning
and what is transcultural meaning.
11. Grudem (p. 302, para. 3): ―But for Webb, the process is entirely different, and the basis of
authority is different. The commands concerning children and homosexuals are binding on us today not
because they were written to new covenant Christians . . .‖ (italics mine). Webb: Again, this is utter
nonsense! Of course, the basis of authority is the covenantal structure of all of Scripture of which the new
covenant and its continuity with previous covenants forms the binding basis for our obedience to the
biblical text. I take all texts within the NT as having binding authority on our lives. Grudem thinks he has
the right to fill in what an author holds simply because he ―could not find such a consideration anywhere in
Webb‘s book‖ (p. 302, para. 3). What an absurd and arrogant assumption! Grudem does not have the right
to make this sort of a fictional statement based upon his own whimsical conjecture. See response to #10
(above).
12. Grudem (p. 302, para. 4): ―only those commands are binding that have passed through his
[Webb‘s] eighteen-part filter‖ (italics mine). Webb: No, I do not believe this. As noted above, all NT
commands are binding without exception! Also, all non-command portions of the NT are binding (what is
this formalist fixation with commands??) upon Christians. Grudem‘s misrepresentation is utterly
deplorable. See #10 above for what the real issue is, namely, cultural components vs. transcultural
components within commands and/or passages which impact a cogent application of these portions of
Scripture.
13. Grudem (p. 302, para. 5): ―test the New Testament commands to see if they are culturally
relative or transcultural before deciding whether to obey them?‖ (italics mine). Webb: No, SW&H never
does this. Rather, certain components within commands may be culturally relative along side of various
33
transcultural components. We do not sift through the NT commands, dump them into two piles--(a)
culturally relative commands and (b) transcultural commands—and then only obey those in the latter
category. This is Grudem‘s fictitious thinking. I do not hold or advocate this.
14. Grudem (p. 302, para. 5): ―test the New Testament commands to see if they are culturally
relative or transcultural before deciding whether to obey them?‖ (italics mine). Webb: We decide to obey
the commands of the NT because we are Christians for whom the NT is authoritative Scripture (along with
the OT!). So, we obey all the commands of the NT through whatever components within the commands
have a transcultural connection with our present world. Once again, the question is one of sorting out the
difference between cultural and transcultural components within a command.
15. Grudem (p. 302, para. 6): ―Most evangelical (myself included [inference: but not Webb!]) say
that we are under the moral authority of the NT . . .‖ (contextual inference added). Webb: See my
extended response to the ―moral authority‖ charge within the body of the paper (above).
16. Grudem (p. 303, para. 1): ―He [Webb] does not consider the moral commands of the NT to
represent a perfect or final moral system for Christians.‖ Webb: The statement conveys two significant
misunderstandings within it. First, in order to reflect Webb‘s book and thinking Grudem would need to
qualify the statement with an important word ―some‖—―some moral commands of the NT . . .‖ (italics and
added word mine). Second, the latter half of the sentence needs to be qualified in two senses (a) the lessthan-ultimate ethic component is at the level of the concrete specificity and (b) not at the level of
redemptive spirit and/or transcultural principle.
17. Grudem (p. 303, para. 2): ―The letter Y [in the XYZ diagram] indicates what the Bible says
about a topic.‖ Webb: The letter Y [in the XYZ diagram] indicates what the Bible says about a topic from
an ―on the page‖ understanding that is devoid of any movement meaning within the biblical text.
18. Grudem (p. 303, para. 4): ―Webb discovers a number of points where ‗our contemporary
culture‘ has a better ethic than what is found in the words of the Bible‖ (italics mine). Webb: No, I most
definitely do not believe this. Rather, I hold that sometimes we can surmise or actually experience a better
realization of NT ethic that goes beyond the biblical text in the sense of (a) its concrete on-the-page
articulation and ―isolated‖ understanding, but (b) is organically tied to the redemptive-spirit meaning of the
(actual) words of the Bible! Grudem‘s (not Webb‘s) words—―better ethic than what is found in the words
of the Bible‖—are highly inflammatory and grossly misrepresent my views.
19. Grudem (p. 303, para. 5): ―Webb believes that the Bible actually endorses slavery; . . .‖
Webb: Nonsense! Grudem‘s presentation of my views is fundamentally incorrect as well as far too
simplistic. First, I never say that the Bible actually or ultimately endorses slavery. Within SW&H I am
trying to think through a hermeneutical understanding of the slavery texts that (a) could possibly lead
Christians to endorse slavery or (b) could possibly lead Christians to advocate the abolition of slavery.
That is the historical reality of the hermeneutical dilemma as faced by Christians of past centuries. In fact, I
am actually working from an understanding that the Bible teaches (through its redemptive-sprit/movement
meaning) abolitionism! Grudem‘s statement that ―Webb believes that the Bible actually endorses slavery‖
merely shows how much Grudem simply chooses to read SW&H from whatever vantage point he feels like.
Second, even if the Bible ultimately through its redemptive-movement meaning teaches abolitionism as an
ultimate ethic, that does not mean that coming to this conclusion is an easy or simple matter for Christians
as Grudem seems to portray rather glibly (p. 303, para 5). The very fact that the Bible ―commands‖ (one of
Grudem‘s favorite words) no retaliation for masters who beat their slaves within certain parameters—―he is
not to be punished‖ (Exod. 21:21) and bases this command on a statement about the slave as ―property‖
raises considerable hermeneutical tension in understanding those words. An on-the-page understanding
would seem to indicate a certain amount of acceptance of and tolerance towards slavery. But, I would
argue that, despite the fact that this Exodus text reflects a less-than-an-ultimate ethic in the treatment of
people on one level, on a far more significant level of meaning its redemptive spirit (relative to the ancientworld setting), if adequately captured and appreciated, ultimately bans even the limited-sort-of beatings that
are permitted within the text. As argued within the body of this paper, this beating text (and others), if
understand with RMH meaning, lead to an abolitionist ethic that would do away with the physical beating
of slaves and with slavery itself. While an on-the-page understanding of the Exodus text provides a tacit
endorsement of beating slaves and of slavery, the powerful redemptive spirit or ―movement meaning‖
within these words are in harmony with and provide impetus for an abolitionist ethic.
34
20. Grudem (p. 304, para. 3): ―Webb believes that it [the NT] does approve a system of slavery
for the people at the time it was written‖(italics mine). Webb: No, Webb does not believe this. Same
answer as above in #17. Grudem minimizes or eliminates the hermeneutical tension that is possible in
words within any document (the Bible or some other ancient document) where the framers of the document
must live with an incremental ethic that on the one hand beckons toward something better but is not itself
an expression of the something better in terms of full realization. Here one has to listen to the
hermeneutical yearnings of the biblical text (its heart and spirit and soul) as it speaks within its social
context as much as one listens to the literary contextual (up and down the page) exegesis of words on the
page. In grammatical-historical exegesis some Christians focus on the ―grammatical/lexical‖ component
but are unwilling to enter into a fullest sense of the ―historical‖ component to exegesis. Words are always
framed within a historical/social horizon—a horizon that often gives a much more important broadspectrum sort of meaning about direction of movement.
21. Grudem (p. 304, para. 5): ―According to Webb‘s system, then, Christians can no longer
simply go to the NT, begin to read the moral commands in one of Paul‘s epistles, and believe that they
should obey them.‖ Webb: Grudem has succumbed to hyper-reactionary impulses. I actually share some
of Grudem‘s concern here but it would be a concern evenly leveled at Grudem‘s own scholarly writings.
See my comments within the body of the paper about Grudem‘s role as interpretive ―priest‖ to the lay
evangelical population.
22. Grudem (p. 305, para. 2): According to Webb ―we should obey them [the moral commands of
the NT] not because they are taught in the NT, but because Webb‘s system has found that what they teach
is also the moral standard found in his ‗ultimate ethic‘‖. Webb: I most emphatically do not hold this! See
body of paper (above).
23. Grudem (p. 305, para. 3): ―our ultimate authority is no longer the Bible but Webb‘s system.‖
Webb: I most emphatically do not hold this! See body of paper (above).
24. Grudem (p. 305, para. 3): ―by his [Webb‘s] own admission this ‗redemptive spirit‘ is not the
same as the teachings of the Bible‖. Webb: This is utter nonsense! See response within body (above).
25. Grudem (p. 306, para. 4): ―the standard is no longer what the NT says, but rather the point
toward which some biblical scholar thinks the Bible was moving.‖ Webb: I do not hold this; see my
development of ―what the Bible/NT says‖ in the essay above.
26. Grudem (p. 306, para. 5): ―Webb‘s system constitutes a direct denial of the Reformation
principle sola Scriptura, the doctrine that ‗the Bible alone‘ is the ultimate authority for what we are to
believe and do . . .‖ Webb: It puzzles me how Grudem can speak of a ―direct‖ denial of the Reformation
principle. I certainly do not explicitly argue any such case for abandoning sola Scriptura—that sort of
denial would indeed constitute a ―direct‖ denial had I done so. Maybe Grudem meant ―indirect‖ or ―in
effect‖ denial. Furthermore, I would actually hold the reverse. I am in full agreement with the concept of
sola Scriptura. It is Grudem‘s hermeneutic that sadly undermines Scripture‘s ultimate authority for life and
practice since it is Grudem‘s anemic hermeneutic that divests Scripture of its powerful redemptive-spirit
meaning—meaning that Grudem does not want to ―hear‖ or ―obey‖ within its very words! See my
response within the paper (above). One final comment to the naïve reader: please do not be seduced by
Grudem‘s (intentional?) duplicity in meaning when he talks about sola Scriptura as ―the Bible alone‖ as if
therefore it is illegitimate according to this Reformation principle to use any external ancient non-biblical
sources to figure out what the Bible is saying. I could show you numerous cases where Grudem himself
does this very thing; he uses ancient sources external to the Bible to figure out what the Bible is saying (and
legitimately so)! Do not be fooled by this slight of hand (whether intentional or not). Such is not at all the
meaning of sola Scriptura. What sola Scriptura entails is that, after coming to discern what the Bible
actually means (by the best sources of scholarship available!), what the Bible means/says/teaches is the
ultimate authority for our lives.
27. Grudem (p. 307, 1st partial paragraph): ―In Webb‘s system the norm is no longer the teachings
of the Bible but what we can discover about the ‗ultimate ethic‘ (Z) toward which the Bible was heading‖
(italics mine). Webb: Grudem‘s charge is false. I do not hold this. Rather, I hold that an ultimate ethic is
deeply rooted in the teachings of the Bible! Despite Grudem‘s conservative posturing, it is his view that
attempts to destroy (―hide‖ or ―smother‖ might be better words) this important meaning connection
35
between ―the teachings of the Bible‖ and an ―ultimate ethic‖. He is left with making a most strained
exegetical case for abolitionism based upon texts in the NT such as 1 Cor. 7:21-22, Gal. 3:28 and Phlm 16,
21 (see Grudem‘s citation of these texts as the basis for abolitionism—page 302, para. 5; cf. page 313, para.
4). I would love to go for a full-length article exchange with Grudem on the exegetical meaning of these
texts. Any attempt to argue for abolitionism from these texts (especially using Grudem‘s on-the-page and
non-movement hermeneutical perspective!) is a dubious and doomed enterprise. For instance, in 1 Cor.
7:21-22 Paul is hardly arguing for abolitionism. What he says is that a slave with resources should
preferentially seek freedom. This is not talking about abolitionism, namely, getting rid of the institution of
slavery as a whole. This is simply an illustrative comment within a greater context of 1 Corinthians 7 that
is discussing the preferential benefits of singleness over marriage! Paul also tells those within slavery to
―be content‖ with where they are. When Paul‘s words are understood ―up and down the page‖
contextually, such meaning does not convey an abolitionist perspective. If Paul were ―teaching‖
abolitionism within these words, it would surely have sent a strange signal to those slaves hoping to escape
their plight and head north to Canada on the underground railway. How does such a flight from slavery fit
with Paul‘s contextual instruction to ―be content‖ with whatever state you are in? I could expand these
sorts of exegetical comments on each of the three so-called abolitionist texts that Grudem has cited. The
exegetical case (meaning on the page) for ―Paul teaching abolitionism‖ in these verses is so incredibly
weak that it is rather amusing to watch the gymnastics needed in order to leap out of the literary contextual
meaning (meaning devoid of a RMH perspective that is). I would be delighted to see Grudem publish a 48page case for ―Paul teaching abolitionism‖ from these NT verses. Yes, these texts contain movement
meaning but they are not likely within the Pauline canon to be ―teaching‖ the ethical stance of abolitionism
as the concrete referential meaning for the first-century audience. Only if we harness the power of the
redemptive-spirit within these texts (and extrapolate that spirit!) can we end up at an abolitionist
perspective. Oh, but then of course, we would have to embrace a redemptive-movement hermeneutic to do
so. For further discussion, see Appendix B (below).
28. Grudem (p. 307, para. 2): ―He [Webb] never considers the possibility that the development
from OT to NT is the end, and that the NT itself provides the final ethical standard for Christians in the new
covenant.‖ Webb: I would hold that the NT does ―provide the final ethical standard for Christians in the
new covenant‖. Nevertheless, the final ethical standard for Christians contained within the NT is contained
in certain cases within its redemptive spirit (not its concrete, on-the-page specificity). Grudem asserts that
―He [Webb] never considers the possibility that the development from the OT to the NT is the end . . .‖
Yes, I have actually considered that possibility and from reading SW&H one should be able to pick up my
answer: No, I do not believe that the development or fulfillment of redemptive-movement meaning in all
cases ends with the NT. In some case it does. In some cases it does not. For a focused development of the
rational, see the Schreiner-Webb debate cited above and the respective journals.
29. Grudem (p. 309, para. 1): ―Webb repeatedly gives long lists of Mosaic laws on slavery or
wives, and then says it would be foolish to obey what ‗the Bible‘ says . . .‖ ―the change from old covenant
to new covenant means that those dozens of Mosaic laws are not part of what ‗the Bible‘ requires of
Christians today. We are not under the Mosaic covenant.‖ Webb: While Grudem does not misrepresent
my views here, what he does do in his review is to reveal his own assumptions about the rather severe
(almost Marcionite) disjunction between the Christian and the OT/Mosaic covenant. One might ask
Grudem several questions in terms of his own treatment of the OT (pp. 307-308). For instance, do not all
of the OT examples tell us something about the way that God works in social ethic as he reveals his will to
humanity? Is there not a lot of continuity between the testaments so that many aspects of the OT discussion
about wives and slaves would have been appreciated (not ―tossed aside‖ as Grudem does) as authoritative
in some measure within the early church? When the NT did not give any specific instructions about a
master beating his slave, would not a Christian master naturally look to the OT texts for guidance?
Grudem‘s own discussion demonstrates that he does not give much room, if any, for the authority of OT
Scripture for Christians even in an application sense where there is a fair amount of continuity in subject
matter between Testaments. For further discussion of the importance of these OT examples on the matter
of applying a RMH to the NT, see the Schreiner-Webb debate (SBJT and EQ).
30. Grudem (p. 309, para. 3): ―Webb denies the historicity of Genesis 2–3 . . .‖; (p. 310, para. 3):
―This is also an explicit denial of the historical accuracy of the Genesis 2 account‖ (p. 310, para. 5): ―This
is another way in which Webb denies the historicity of the Genesis 2 account.‖ Webb: At no point within
36
my assessment of Genesis 2–3 do I deny the historical accuracy of this material. This is Grudem‘s
wrongful assertion. See discussion in paper (above).
31. Grudem (p. 309, para. 4): ―. . . rather than accurately recording what was in fact true in the
garden‖; (p. 310, para. 2): ―this denies the truthfulness of a section of historical narrative in Scripture‖ (p.
311, para. 1st partial paragraph): ―Moses inserted into Genesis 2 facts that were not true.‖ Webb: Again, I
do not in any way affirm the inaccuracy or the lack of truthfulness of the Genesis material. This is
Grudem‘s wrongful assertion. See discussion in paper (above).
32. Grudem (p. 311, para. 2): ―This again is an explicit denial of the historical accuracy of the
headship of Adam and his prior creation as found in Genesis 2. It was simply ‗a practical and gracious
anticipation of the agrarian setting into which Adam and Eve were headed‘‖ (cf., the same comment about
the ―agrarian society‖ by Grudem in the next paragraph). Webb: This is a most delightful erroneous
perspective developed by Grudem because in point of truth I take this third ―agrarian society‖ option as
having quite possibly a non-accommodation basis compared to the first two accommodation alternatives.
In this case, if there is one-to-one historical correspondence intended by the author, then perhaps God
structured things this way in anticipation of agrarian society into which humanity was headed. In other
words, even if a particular item within the garden narrative was intended as historical/non-accommodation,
such does not automatically infer that it should carry transcultural weight for contemporary application.
Grudem is so skewed in his reading of my materials and with his own (!) assertions about denying
historical accuracy (something I do not do) that he fails to even think about the primary point of the
criterion and that is cultural/transcultural analysis. In so doing, he creates a scenario with the third
alternative that is actually the complete opposite to what I hold.
33. Grudem (p. 311, whole para. 5): ―According to Webb‘s view, the entire narrative . . . –all of
this is a mere literary device that did not actually happen, according to Webb‖ (italics mine). Webb: I have
no idea how Grudem gets half of the materials within this paragraph. I do not even discuss half of them.
34. Grudem (p. 312, para. 2): ―Webb assumes that ‗the Bible‘ . . . supports things such as
slavery‖(italics mine); cf., p. 314, para. 3, ―his [Webb‘s] claim that the Bible condones slavery . . .‖ (italics
mine). Webb: Sorry Dr. Grudem, I do not hold this. Actually, I hold that, as derived through its
redemptive-spirit meaning, the Bible ―teaches‖ the abolition of slavery. Grudem‘s attempt at finding
―abolition‖ as clearly contained within certain NT passages (p. 313—314) is a rather strained exegetical
effort at best. See further comments above (#19).
35. Grudem (p. 314, para. 4 to p. 318, para. 4): ―Webb assumes that the Bible teaches: . . . [points
1—5]‖; ―Webb simply asserts that the Bible teaches the following: . . . [points 6—16].‖ Webb: No, Dr.
Grudem I do not assume that ―the Bible teaches‖ these particular things. Even if the Bible does not ―teach
them‖, these various examples of embedded materials within the biblical pages, show us various aspects
within the text that we need to ―sift through‖ in sorting out exactly what we should derive from the text as
authoritative. Dr. Grudem fails to understand that the objective and value of these illustrations are for
sorting through various hermeneutical principles (please set each comment back within its particular
criterion and evaluate it within its original context—thanks!) and how we ought to use them consistently.
In a word, Dr. Grudem has torn these examples out of their literary/criteria context and simply appended to
them the (incorrect!) assessment that ―Webb assumes that the Bible teaches these things‖. Such a
perspective is highly inaccurate.
Final Note: This provides a sample list of Grudem‘s misunderstandings and
misrepresentations. I will stop at page 20 of Grudem‘s 48-page review. While this
covers only 42% of the article, it gives a sufficient basis for appreciating the severity of
Grudem‘s misunderstanding—a misunderstanding that in turn has led to a substantial
misrepresentation of my views.
37
Appendix B
Grudem‘s Hermeneutics:
Abolitionism as the Plain/Non-Movement Teaching
of the New Testament
Grudem asserts that the NT clearly ―teaches‖ abolitionism in a plain, words-on-the-page sense.
Consequently, there is no need for a RMH in order to establish abolitionism from the NT. For instance,
Grudem argues from 1 Cor. 9:21b—―if you can gain your freedom, do so‖—and from Philemon 16—―no
longer as a slave‖—that Paul/the NT teaches the abolition of slavery. Yet, Grudem‘s assertion that the NT
teaches abolitionism (as understood from his non-movement hermeneutical approach) is a rather strained
exegetical endeavor at best. While this argument is admirable because of its attempt to rescue the NT from
a less-than-ultimate social ethic in this area, unfortunately Grudem‘s exegesis is hardly convincing. I will
look at these two texts in turn.
Understood within its larger literary and social context, the text of 1 Cor. 9:21b does not teach an
abolitionist ethic. Several observations should make that clear. First, in the broader context Paul‘s primary
point is for slaves to ―remain where you are‖ (7:20, 23). In other words, slaves should be content to live for
God as slaves and not worry about their social status in terms of their ability to serve God. This is hardly
an abolitionist perspective. Second, the larger context is a discussion about the relative pragmatics for
living in an unrestricted way to serve God. The preference then (like Paul) is not to be married and free
from such responsibilities (7:25-28; 7:32-33). A married person, like a slave person (please limit the
analogy to the one component ) has more obligations than the ―free‖ person. It is in this sense that Paul is
advocating freedom. Does it give us a nudge in an ethical direction? Yes, I think so. Is it an explicit
teaching about abolitionism? No. Third, within the social setting Paul‘s comment probably only addresses
one favored part/segment of the slave population, namely, those who could buy their way out of slavery. It
is unlikely given Paul‘s broader teaching and admonitions to slaves that he is suggesting that they become
free through any (non-violent) means possible—e.g., running away to freedom. The apostle‘s statement ―if
you can gain your freedom‖ is most likely referring to buying oneself out of slavery. He is not giving an
admonition to Christian slave owners to set their slaves free. Nor is he instructing the Christian community
to pool their resources to enable slaves to become free. Nor is Paul encouraging this Christian community
to become a ―refuge pipeline‖ for runaway slaves to enable social change. Paul‘s freedom comment does
not help permanent chattel slaves nor impoverished slaves (debt or chattel slaves) who could do nothing
within the slavery system to accomplish their release.
Likewise, within its larger literary and social context Philemon 16a ―no longer as a slave‖ does not teach
abolitionism. Does it better/improve the relationship and status for one particular slave, Onesimus? Yes.
Does it teach abolitionism as a social ethic? No. Several observations lead to this conclusion. First, Paul‘s
words ―no longer as a slave‖ are qualified by the rest of the verse, namely, ―but better than a slave, as a
dear brother‖. Paul certainly tempers the slave-master relationship in a radical sense. Most likely he does
not remove the slave status but sets the ―brotherhood‖ status as more dominant in defining the relationship.
In other words, Paul is saying, ―no longer [purely!] as a slave‖ or ―no longer as a slave [only!]‖. The words
about brotherhood that follow suggest that we move from overstatement to the transformed reality. The
rest of the arguments (below) confirm this approach to exegesis. Second, Paul directs Onesimus to return
from Rome (probable location) to his former master in Colosse (vs. 12). It would appear that Onesimus
was converted under Paul‘s ministry in Rome and now as a Christian there is a need for him to return to his
master. Returning a slave to his/her master is hardly an abolitionist perspective. Third, certain words infer
some sort of remaining ownership scenario that limits Paul‘s right to keep Onesimus with himself in Rome.
Paul says he ―would like to keep him‖ (vs. 13) yet is hesitant ―without your [Philemon‘s] consent‖ (vs. 14).
There may also be a hint of this continuing ownership scenario within the two-fold assessment of
Onesimus‘ value in verse 16c—―as a man [the human/social value of being a slave?] and as a brother‖.
38
Paul may well be asking for Philemon (as one particular now-turned-Christian and close-to-the-heart coworker) to release Onesimus as a slave in order for him to work in the ministry with Paul. But, this is not
abolitionism. Paul does not write Philemon to release all of his Christian slaves based upon their new
brotherhood status in Christ, only for the release of one slave who has become important to him in ministry.
Fourth, Paul does not give instructions to Philemon to release all of his non-Christian slaves who would not
be considered ―brothers‖ in Christ. While Christian brotherhood clearly transforms the slave-master
relationship, an abolitionist perspective reaches far beyond to encompass the whole of humanity. There is
no hint of this sort of abolitionist treatment of non-Christian slaves either in Philemon or the rest of the NT.
Fifth, an abolitionist perspective on slavery does not worry about ―debts owed‖, such as Paul does in verse
17, for slaves who have escaped and made their way to freedom. The debts of which Paul speaks are most
likely those of lost time for Onesimus‘ slave service/duties and lost articles often taken by slaves to pay
for/enable their escape. An abolitionist ethic compassionately understands that the greater good of
achieving freedom from slavery will often, if not necessarily, incur a loss in these two categories.
However, these two sorts of loss are legitimately and more than adequately compensated for not in
repayment by the escaped slave after the escape but in the previous benefits of slave labor to the master
before the escape. Sixth, the ancient social context suggests that Paul is making strong hints not about the
abolition of slavery but about easing off on the severe penalties for runaway slaves. The social climate of
Paul‘s day dealt with runaway slaves in a manner of brutal severity. Escaped slaves, if caught, were
frequently beaten, maimed and put to death along with certain of their immediate family members as an
object lesson. Also, people who aided in the escape of slaves were often treated in this harsh manner.
Within that ancient social context it is most likely that Paul simply ―takes the edge off‖ of the severe
ramifications for a runaway slave. He also has the practical hopes of having Onesimus help him at some
future stage in his ministry. Seventh, any referent ambiguity about ―good treatment‖ within the letter of
Philemon must be understood in terms of the very clear address to slaves and masters that was part of the
―same city‖ and ―same time/delivery‖ package, namely, the closely related instructions found in the letter
to the Colossians. The words addressed to slaves and masters in that letter (Colossians) would have had
significant impact upon the household church, including Onesimus and Philemon. While there is an
admonition to treat slaves fairly, it is only (Grudem‘s) wishful thinking that could turn these instructions
into an abolitionist address. Read these instructions in Col. 3:22–4:1 and ask if these are
commands/instructions to masters for freeing slaves and to slaves for finding emancipation. Reading the
Colossians letter and hearing its words addressed to slaves with Onesimus (the slave) sitting in that church
community gives a pretty strong confirmation that Paul does not teach abolitionism in any clear ―on the
page‖ sense that Grudem is attempting to derive from the text of Philemon.
Nevertheless, are Paul‘s actions and writings redemptive relative to the social context? Yes, clearly! Is
there ―movement meaning‖? Yes. Yet, Paul does not ―teach‖ in any words-on-the-page sense an
abolitionist perspective within the Christian community, not even within his wonderful heart-warming
letter to Philemon.