Craig S. Keener’s investigation is driven by two impulses. The first is presented as a concern for justice—in particular, for the equality of men and women in church and family, though the author, an ordained minister of the National Baptist Convention, a black denomination, is also highly conscious of the abolitionist tradition and argues at some length from the parallels and connections between the two movements. The second is the conviction that what Paul has to say about women cannot be properly understood without taking into account the cultural context and specific circumstances addressed.

In Part One, Keener tackles those passages that bear upon the activity of women in the church. In each case he reviews in adequate detail the various interpretations that have customarily been proposed. Then, drawing upon a wide range of ancient evidence, he attempts to define—as accurately as possible within the confines of a work that aims to bridge the scholarly and popular genres—the concrete situation that Paul sought to correct. So, for example, the significance of head coverings in the Greco-Roman and Jewish world, the part played by women in education, and the values attached to personal adornment, are broadly surveyed. Keener’s own interpretative strategy is to show that Paul imposed restrictions on women for reasons that were culturally determined. At issue in 1 Cor. 11:2–16, therefore, is how different cultures define and conceal what is sexually alluring. In respect to 1 Cor. 14:34–35 and 1 Tim. 2:9–15, the conclusion is that ‘If Paul does not want the women to teach in some sense, it is not because they are women, but because they are unlearned’. Rather less thought is given to the question of whether women should exercise authority over men.

Part Two deals with what Keener admits is the more problematic issue of the role of women in the family. The basic question is starkly put: ‘Is Paul adopting the leadership structures of his day as a transcultural requirement, or does he just call us to live the Christian life within the framework of whatever leadership structures exist in our society?’ It is answered in three stages.

Keener describes first, in ch. 4, what he believes to be the particular social situation presupposed in Eph. 5:18–33, namely the widespread fear that foreign cults, for which women appear to have had a special predilection, were a threat to the stability of the traditional Roman family. The purpose of the sort of ‘household code’ that we find in this passage was in part to forestall accusations of moral subversion. In chapter 5 Keener documents evidence for the subordination of women in the ancient world, then argues that Paul places greater emphasis on mutual submission than on the particular submission of the wife to the husband. Finally, in chapter 6, he examines the slavery issue as a model for interpreting the relation between husbands and wives, surveying at surprising length OT slave law, misuse of the Bible in American race/slavery, and the practice and criticism of slavery in Roman society. Whether he has successfully defended the validity of the comparison is not clear, but this rather novel approach at least keeps in view the historical and sociological aspect of the whole business.

This is certainly a useful book. It is an excellent compendium of ancient sources and has a wide-ranging bibliography; appendices consider other evidence for the ministry of women in the Pauline churches and for the part played by women in the mystery cults. As a cultural commentary it will prove fascinating to many readers and a valuable supplementary resource. As a work of exegesis it is comprehensive and fair but essentially dependent on the research and opinions of others. There are also weak links in the argument. Not every reader, for example, will acquiesce in the view, crucial for Keener’s interpretation of the Ephesians ‘household code’ but not adequately demonstrated, that in Eph. 5:21 Paul calls for the mutual submission of husband and wife; and the attempt to find an instructive analogy in the slavery issue is bound to prove controversial. What the book may chiefly lack, however, as a defence of the egalitarian position, is a proper discussion of the hermeneutical difficulties raised by such an investigation of the cultural background.

---