Journal: Priscilla Papers
Volume: PP 29:1 (Winter 2015)
Article: The Evolution Of Complementarian Exegesis
Author: Jamin Hübner

---

PP 29:1 (Winter 2015) p. 11

The Evolution Of Complementarian Exegesis

Jamin Hübner

Jamin Hübner is an American theologian and author from South Dakota. He is a graduate of Dordt College (BA Theology), Reformed Theological Seminary (MA Religion), and the University of South Africa (ThD), and he currently serves as the Director of Institutional Effectiveness and founding Chair of Christian Studies at John Witherspoon College in the Black Hills. In addition to being the author of A Case for Female Deacons (Wipf and Stock, 2015) and A Case for Female Elders (diss., publication forthcoming), Dr. Hübner serves as a peer-review editor for Priscilla Papers.

It is common to view the entire debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism in terms of which side has more biblical support. Both sides of the debate have an explicitly high view of scripture that gives biblical texts a central place of authority. Exegetical theology, then, is naturally given a tremendous amount of weight—as are hermeneutics and biblical interpretation.

It has become characteristic of one side of the debate to impugn the other side by propounding a changing base, particularly with regard to biblical interpretation. To show that egalitarians’ interpretation of key biblical texts continually changes is to demonstrate that the egalitarian position is, after all, merely a product of contemporary thought, changing with the waves of culture. On the other hand, if it can be shown that complementarians’ interpretation of key biblical texts has not changed over time, then this would indicate theological stability and a commitment to unchanging truth. So the argument goes. The preface to the 2006 reprint of the 1991 book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, states these assumptions clearly: “many of the evangelical feminist arguments have changed in the last decade whereas the complementarian defenses have not.”1

The point of this article is not to ask (or answer) whether this two-pronged line of reasoning is legitimate. Rather, for the sake of the argument, let us assume that it is and address the latter half of this reasoning: is complementarian interpretation of key biblical passages as stable as claimed? Or does complementarianism rest on a gradually-shifting exegetical base? This brief study will show that “the complementarian defenses” have not stopped changing—at least when it comes to the interpretation of key verses.

Susan Foh And 1 Timothy 2:11-12

In her 1979 book, Women and the Word of God, Susan Foh summarized her position on 1 Tim 2:11-12: “We have concluded that …

visitor : : uid: ()