Buy buspar without a perscription to ship overnight
Ben Reaoch
The scope of this book encompasses a diverse
selection of hermeneutical questions—indeed, too
many to cover in a book review. Therefore, I will
begin by giving a brief overview of the four con-
tributors and then focus mainly on the portions
of the book that relate closely to slavery and the
gender debate. William Webb, one of the contrib-
utors, is the author of Slaves, Women, and Homo-
sexuals (InterVarsity, 2001). One of the fascinating
things to see in this Four Views book is the interac-
tion concerning slavery, gender roles, and Webb’s
redemptive-movement hermeneutic. It is most
intriguing to see two egalitarians, William Webb
and Walter Kaiser, present opposing approaches
for their conclusions. Therefore, I will narrow the
focus of this review to these topics. For a more gen-
eral response to the book, see Thomas Schreiner’s
review in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology
13, no. 4 (Winter 2009): 88-90.
General Overview
The book consists of the presentation of four
hermeneutical models, each followed by responses
from the three other contributors. Following this
section of the book there are three “reflection”
chapters offered by Mark Strauss, Al Wolters, and
Christopher Wright.
Walter Kaiser presents a principlizing model
of biblical interpretation. A key aspect of this
approach is using the Ladder of Abstraction, which
Kaiser defines as “a continuous sequence of catego-
rizations from a low level of specificity up to a high
point of generality in a principle and down again to
a specific application in the contemporary culture”
(24). He illustrates this by citing the Old Testa-
ment prohibition against muzzling an ox (Deut
25:4) and showing how Paul applies that principle
to the matter of financially supporting pastors in
the church (1 Cor 9:9–12; 1 Tim 5:18).
Kaiser then addresses various issues in order
to demonstrate the use of a principlizing model.
He discusses euthanasia, women and the church,
homosexuality, slavery, abortion, and embryonic
stem cell research. In each case he seeks to show
that principles within the Word of God are suffi-
cient for our instruction concerning these matters.
There is no need to go beyond the Bible.
Daniel Doriani commends a redemptive-
historical model for hermeneutics. The focus here
is on the progressive development and christocen-
tricity of the Bible. Doriani strongly affirms the
authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity of Scripture
and the need for interpreters to be both technically
skilled and spiritually sensitive. On the matter of
Scripture’s authority he states, “If Scripture says
something I do not prefer, then so much the worse
for my preferences” (77).
Doriani discusses two specific ways in which
one may go beyond the sacred page. First, casu-
istry can be used to answer questions that are
not addressed specifically in the Bible. Quoting
Thomas Merrill, Doriani defines casuistry as the
“‘art of resolving particular cases of conscience
through appeal to higher general principles,’ espe-
cially when one must act at a time when principles
seem to be in conflict or when a new problem has
emerged” (100). Second, we must go beyond the
sacred page by asking the right questions, specifi-
cally having to do with duty, character, goals, and
worldview (103). Doriani applies this approach to
issues such as gambling, wedding planning, archi-
tecture, and women in ministry.
Kevin Vanhoozer presents a drama-of-
redemption model for understanding Scripture.
This position is very similar to the redemptive-
historical model, but with an emphasis on our role
as performers in the theodrama that continues to
unfold. We hold a script, but it is also incumbent
upon us to improvise in response to the unexpected
situations that we encounter. Vanhoozer applies his
method to the theology of Mary and the contem-
porary issue of transsexuality.
William Webb advances a redemptive-move-
ment hermeneutic. He begins his chapter by quali-
fying what he means by moving beyond the Bible.
He states that in one sense “we should never move
beyond the Bible for it contains the sacred and
cherished covenant with the God we have come to
love deeply” (215). By moving beyond the Bible he
means moving beyond the concrete specificity of the
Bible, or the time-restricted elements of the Bible, or
an isolated or static understanding of the Bible (215).
Webb discerns redemptive-movement in the Bible
by comparing biblical commands with the cultural
norms of that time. For instance, comparing certain
Old Testament injunctions with the norms of the
ancient Near East will reveal the redemptive spirit
of the biblical texts. Thus, certain texts that may be
unsettling to us are seen in a new light. They can
be seen now as liberating and merciful against the
backdrop of the cultural norms of that day. Observ-
ing this redemptive spirit in the text, we can then
follow that trajectory forward into our culture and
seek the ultimate ethic to which the Bible points.
Webb developed this position extensively in
his book Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals, arguing
that the redemptive-movement of the Bible points,
on the one hand, to the abolition of slavery and
the full liberation of women, but on the other hand
points to the continuing prohibition against homo-
sexuality. In this essay Webb summarizes his previ-
ous points concerning slavery and also develops his
hermeneutical model in relation to two additional
matters: war and corporal punishment. He draws
from material that he has been working on for two
forthcoming books, both to be published by IVP.
One is entitled Brutal, Bloody and Barbaric: War
Texts That Trouble the Soul. The other book, which
will deal with spanking / corporal punishment, is
entitled The Rod, the Whip and the Meat Cleaver:
Corporal Punishment Texts That Trouble the Soul. On
this latter issue Webb critiques evangelical scholars
such as R. Albert Mohler and Andreas Kösten-
berger for their pro-spanking stance. These scholars
claim faithfulness to Scripture but do not actually
follow the biblical guidelines for corporal punish-
ment, says Webb. Instead, they ought to recognize
the redemptive-movement of Scripture on this
matter and consider the validity of using “exclu-
sively noncorporal methods of discipline” (240).
Slavery and the Gender Debate
Now I will focus on a few of the points made by
Kaiser, Doriani, and Webb that specifically relate to
slavery and the gender debate. The fascinating thing
to see here is the drastically different (and opposing!)
ways in which Kaiser and Webb defend the egali-
tarian stance. Doriani’s complementarian position
helps to highlight these differences. Webb believes
we must move beyond the “concrete specificity” of
the Bible in order to arrive at abolitionism and egali-
tarianism. Kaiser sees both of these positions inher-
ent within the biblical statements themselves.
Kaiser, through an interesting word study,
concludes that Gen 2:18 should read “I will make a
power corresponding to the man” (Kaiser’s transla-
tion, p. 30) rather than “I will make him a helper fit
for him” (ESV). He then offers this alternate trans-
lation as a possible explanation for Paul’s wording
in 1 Cor 11:10, “For this reason, a woman ought to
have power/authority [Gk. exousia] on her head”
(Kaiser’s translation, p. 31). As for 1 Cor 14:33b–
35, he says that it “actually comes from a letter
addressed to Paul from the Corinthian church and
therefore is not normative teaching” (32). Then on
the pivotal text of 1 Timothy 2, Kaiser suggests that
Paul is basing his instructions not on the “orders of
creation” but on the “orders of education.” He bases
this on the fact that Paul does not use his usual
word for “to create” (ktizō) in verse 13. Rather, he
uses the word “to form” (eplasthē), which can carry
the meaning of “shaping or molding education-
ally, spiritually” (35). Therefore, “since the woman
had not as yet been taught, she was all the more
easily ‘tricked’” (35). Kaiser’s reading of 1 Timothy
2, then, is that women should be taught and then
allowed to teach and exercise authority over men.
Thus, one need not go beyond the Bible to see the
principles of egalitarianism.
Kaiser also addresses the issue of slavery,
drawing a sharp distinction between biblical debt
slavery and pagan slavery. He surveys various pas-
sages in the Pentateuch and shows the gracious
nature of these instructions in comparison with the
slavery found in pagan society. Then he points to
Philemon as a conclusive biblical statement against
pagan slavery. “Alas, despite the clarity of Paul’s
statements, many do not believe the Bible ever
finally took a stand against all forms of involuntary,
that is, pagan, slavery” (42). It is at this point that
Webb will sharply disagree with Kaiser.
Doriani defends a complementarian reading
of 1 Timothy 2. One must conclude that the pro-
hibition in this text is either temporary (the egali-
tarian position) or partial (the complementarian
position). Doriani seeks to show that the prohibi-
tion is permanent but partial:
Women should learn the faith and sharetheir knowledge in some settings, asPaul says in Titus 2:4. But they shouldnot become primary public instructorsand defenders of the faith in the localchurch’s pastoral positions, as Paul envi-sioned them in his instruction to Timo-thy. This division of gender roles has beenGod’s design from the beginning. Sothere is no reason to go beyond/againstthe plain sense of 1 Timothy 2 if we seekPaul’s guidance for the role of women inthe church (112–13).
Doriani also compares the question of gender
roles to the issue of slavery. He acknowledges that
“the Bible does make concessions to cultural reali-
ties,” noting that “biblical law regulates and under-
mines the institution of slavery but does not forbid
it” (118). Male leadership, however, is no such con-
cession. As Doriani presents in his survey of biblical
history, the principle of male leadership is present
throughout the Bible and not a conclusion based
on “a mere heap of texts” (118). Earlier in the chap-
ter he also appeals to 1 Cor 7:21, 23 and Philemon
11–21, concluding (less emphatically than Kaiser)
that “Paul’s opposition to slavery is not stated in
the form of a frontal assault on the institution, but
he clearly wants Christians to avoid or escape it if
they can” (83). He then makes the critical observa-
tion that the way the Bible addresses slavery and
the way it presents male leadership are fundamen-
tally different. They are not parallel, as Webb asserts
(and also John Stackhouse, Finally Feminist, which
Doriani interacts with briefly). Rather, “the par-
allel is between male leadership of marriage and
parental leadership of children. Both are grounded
in creation,” “continue after the fall,” and “are reaf-
firmed after Christ accomplishes redemption” (83).
Webb, in his responses to Kaiser and Doriani,
uses a significant amount of space to critique their
statements about slavery. He first takes issue with
Kaiser’s stark contrast between biblical debt slav-
ery and pagan slavery. Webb asserts, “Debt slavery
was part of the pagan scene, and permanent chattel
slavery was part of the biblical scene at least for
non-Hebrew slaves” (65). His more important crit-
icism of Kaiser has to do with Philemon. Where
Kaiser sees abolitionism, Webb sees nothing of the
sort. He presents seven arguments for a nonabo-
litionist reading of Philemon and then, in a move
reminiscent of his book, asks, “What if I’m wrong?”
with regard to one detail of his argument (68). It
seems that Kaiser too simply finds a solution to the
slavery question, and Webb presents it as overly
difficult.
In response to Doriani, Webb’s criticisms are
similar. He argues against the idea that 1 Cor 7:21
provides any support for abolitionism and reas-
serts the same concerning Philemon. For Webb
there is simply no way of getting from the biblical
text to an abolitionist ethic without the use of his
redemptive-movement hermeneutic. “These texts
are not simply there to regulate society, as Dori-
ani suggests. We need to celebrate the incremental
redemptive movement of both Old and New Tes-
tament slavery texts and permit their underlying
spirit to carry us to an abolitionist position—using
a logical and theological extension of Scripture’s
redemptive spirit found within the slavery texts
themselves” (137, emphasis original).
It is interesting that Webb does not discuss
any of the gender passages in his chapter. He does
not want his hermeneutical model to be equated
with egalitarianism, as he states in his response
to Doriani. Webb claims that “there are leading
evangelicals who endorse a redemptive-movement
hermeneutic approach (contra Doriani) and yet
maintain some sort of contextually configured
hierarchy, generally of a soft or light version, for
today” (133–34, citing Darrell Bock, Craig Blom-
berg, and Mark Strauss). Nonetheless, Webb has
made his views clear in Slaves, Women, and Homo-
sexuals, and it seems to be a fundamental aim of his
hermeneutic to uphold egalitarianism and under-
mine complementarianism.
There are many things I sincerely appreciate
about Webb’s work. He is helpful in raising difficult
questions that require a sensitive response. He cer-
tainly gives any reader much to ponder concerning
those potentially troubling passages of Scripture.
In addition to this, it is Webb’s desire to provide
skeptics with an apologetic for the Scriptures, an
intention which is to be commended.
The way in which Webb’s system comes
together, however, seems misguided. As Al Wolt-
ers points out in his reflection chapter, it is curi-
ous that, “according to [Webb’s] scheme, the same
text can have contradictory meanings” (307). He is
referring to 1 Tim 2:12, which Webb agrees pro-
hibits women from teaching or having authority
over men, at least in the “concrete specificity” of the
text. But then the redemptive-movement of the text
reveals that the opposite is the case: women are free
to teach and exercise authority over men. Wolters
says, “In this way [Webb] can have his cake (hold
to contemporary values) and eat it too (claim faith-
fulness to Scripture)” (307). This, I believe, goes
to the heart of the problem with the redemptive-
movement hermeneutic. Webb desires to root his
egalitarianism in the text of Scripture, but knows
he must avoid the exegetical issues that Kaiser can-
not successfully tackle. Thus, he concedes the com-
plementarian exegesis and then moves beyond the
“concrete specificity” of what the passage is saying.
I believe this move will unavoidably loosen one’s
foundation in the text.
Doriani’s response to Webb is helpful in see-
ing the differences between the redemptive-move-
ment hermeneutic and a nuanced complementarian
reading of the slavery issue and the gender debate.
The question is not whether there is redemptive
movement, but rather how much. “We agree that
there is movement in the teaching on slavery and
that there is not movement on homosexuality; we
disagree about gender roles” (260).
We will have to watch in the days to come
to see if egalitarians will move in a unified way to
adopt Webb’s approach, or if many will continue to
advance the more “traditional” egalitarian approach
represented by Kaiser. The two scholars find them-
selves on different paths as they seek the same des-
tination. Which path will egalitarianism take into
the future?
