Do You See What I See? (Part II)
He (Jesus) fulflils the law down to the last iota. But that means that he must die, he alone understands the true nature of the law as God's law: the law is not itself God, nor is God the law. It was the error of Israel to put the law in God's place, to make the law their God and their God a law.
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship
“All important modern translations of the Bible now restore the original language used by Paul . . . but somehow the illusions fostered by the King James falsifications remain common wisdom. Nevertheless, there is virtual consensus among historians of the early church as well as Biblical scholars that women held positions of honour and authority within early Christianity. . . .”
Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997), 109.
In for a penny, in for a pound. It is against my preference for leisure that I have decided to press into this section on Paul’s writings. You may want to break this reading up, but I think the subject matter warrants the effort.
Most of our conversations on this topic of gender roles in the church start off on the wrong foot- Paul’s treatment of women and language about women. When you focus only on one thing, you are likely to distort the big picture. What Greek and Roman people thought about gender highlights what Paul is doing as a missionary strategist. When we read scripture, it is impossible to avoid applying cultural knowledge. The question at hand is which culture are we applying to the text and does it make sense to do so?
What did Paul say to men, or those in power? What is driving this discussion? The questions I hear regarding the role of women in the church are these: Should women preach? Should they be allowed to teach men? Should they hold leadership positions? Who is asking the question and why? On the one hand, traditions of the church have suppressed women in deference to Artistotelian readings of the epistles. It would be easy to impute a selfish desire to cling to power and tradition, but there is also a sincere desire to be faithful to scripture. Our challenge is to be faithful to the whole of the story arc of scripture. What I am presenting here is an introduction to the roles women played in early Christianity and a reorientation to the contentious writings of Paul with consequent implications in order to place them within that story arc. None of this will be exhaustive. My only aim is to provide a sketch from what I have seen in my study over the years.
(Some) Women of the Early Church
In reading scripture over the years, I have made note of the many women leaders, and for this purpose the emphasis has been on New Testament women. However, I defer to Marg Mowczko’s work for most of these examples- for convenience sake to be honest. I recently discovered her work and am a big fan.
Mary sat at the feet of Jesus, a phrasing used of Paul regarding Gamaliel and its common usage was in reference to a student or disciple.
Mary Magdalene and Mary, mother of Jesus were the first witnesses of the resurrection and were the first to tell the Good News.
The daughters of Philip prophesied, that is they spoke God’s words or functioned as the mouthpiece of God. The first time we encounter a prophet in scripture is in Exodus. God tells Moses that he will be as God and that Aaron will be as his prophet, speaking on his behalf. This actually does not have as much to do with telling the future as it does with declaring God’s justice and mercy.
Junia, regarded by scholars as a first century apostle and a woman. In his book Junia: The First Woman Apostle, Eldon Epp gives a textual critical evaluation of the history of Junia in the Greek text and also the search in non-Biblical Greek literature for "Junias" ─ the alleged masculine form of the name which has not been found in writings from New Testament times and only rarely thereafter.” The masculinized name “Junias” does not appear in any early Greek inscription. From Marg Mowczko’s blog on “Women Church Leaders in the New Testament”: The feminine name “Junia” however is found about 250 times. James D.G. Dunn writes: (Lampe 139-40, 147) indicates over 250 examples of “Junia,” none of Junias, as was taken for granted by the patristic commentators, and indeed up to the Middle Ages. The assumption that it must be male is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity. . . We may firmly conclude, however, that one of the foundation apostles of Christianity was a woman and wife. James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 38B) (Dallas: Word, 1988), 894. The name change did not occur until Origen, around the third century.
Kevin Giles writes in Patterns of Ministry (p 34-35): Prisca [Priscilla] is not the only woman associated with house church leadership. A surprising number of women are mentioned in this role. . . . In Acts we see Mark’s mother providing a home for the Christians to assemble (Acts 12:12) and at Philippi we hear of believers meeting in the home of Lydia (Acts 16:14-15, 40). Writing to the Colossians, Paul greets “Nympha and the church in her house” (Col. 4:15). Perhaps Chloe is also the host of a home-church (1 Cor. 1:11), as may have been some of the other women Paul greets in the last chapter of Romans.
Nympha was changed from feminine to masculine in some texts to read “the church in his house.” The question I have, is why these changes?
Euodia and Syntyche of Philippi were coworkers of Paul. Paul wrote that these women “have struggled together with me in the ministry of the gospel (en tō euaggeliō sunēthlēsan moi)” (Phil. 4). This is similar to what Paul says about Timothy in the same letter: that he had served with him “in the gospel” (Phil. 2). Like Timothy, Euodia and Syntyche were involved in gospel work (Marg Mowczko’s blog on “Women Church Leaders in the New Testament”).
Another female minister esteemed by Paul was Phoebe. In Romans 16:1-2 Paul described Phoebe as both a diakonos and a prostatis. Kevin Giles writes:
The meaning of the last term has been much debated. In either its masculine or feminine form it means literally ‘one who stands before.’ This meaning is never lost whether it be translated leader, president, protector or patron . . . Its verbal form is proistanai (cf. Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17), a term used of male church leaders elsewhere in the New Testament (Marg Mowczko’s blog on “Women Church Leaders in the New Testament”).
Priscilla, another close friend and coworker of Paul, served as a pastor-teacher (the early church rarely referred to ministers as pastors). Together with her husband Aquila, she taught the already learned and eloquent Apollos, who was himself a teacher, “the way of God” (i.e. theology) more accurately (Acts 18:24-26).
What is undeniable in scripture is that women did in fact teach, prophesy, and lead. The debate will emerge over the capacity of such participation. Was it to women only? Early christian and historical writings refer to the wisdom of having women teach and baptize women in order to avoid scandal, and they also note the evidence of women deacons. Women prophesied, as seen with Philip’s daughters in Acts 21 and with 1 Corinthians.
In Acts 10, the Holy Spirit is poured out on the Gentiles and they demonstrate the same evidences of Acts 2 when the Spirt comes to those in Jerusalem. The Judean believers took issue with Peter entering the household of the uncircumcised and eating with them. They knew the laws and traditions. What they heard was Peter violating these. What happened to Peter? He had an encounter (he saw a vision and heard a voice) with the Spirit of Jesus that flattened the walls of his traditions. “So, if God gave them the same gift He gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in the way (Acts 11)?” Like Gamaliel, Peter saw the wisdom in allowing room for the Spirit of God to do things unfamiliar to him. If the Holy Spirit is poured out on women (sons and daughters will prophesy...Spirit poured out on all flesh) as Joel prophesied and is quoted in Acts 2, who are we to forbid the Holy Spirt from speaking though whomever He chooses, women included? Like Peter, and even Gamaliel, do we allow the Spirt of God to move beyond our traditions or do we prefer Him back in the ark (“box”) with the stone tablets of law?
But Paul forbade women to speak and lead though, didn't he? Didn’t he say stuff about Eve being the problem and women are saved by childbirth and that men are the head since Adam came first? He said these things. Yet, women did these things. He told Gentiles don’t worry about circumcision, but Timothy experienced a different message. Was he contradictory all the time? Maybe it is how he was heard? How do these ideas fit the Good News?
Engaging the Story of Scripture
About four years ago, I discovered The Bible Project. I watched a few videos and was immediately hooked. I am a visual learner. I am interested in telling the Story of Jesus in His world and not in becoming a scholar of law. I look for connections and synthesis rather than isolated fragments (the whole of the story). I committed to following their ReadScripture app in order to read the Bible in a year. Along with daily reading and mediation on the Psalms, their videos are interjected to summarize the story of each book and the section to which it belongs. They offer theme videos on topics like Holiness, Covenant, and Heaven and Earth. They also offer video series on topics like How to Read the Bible and word studies. Recently they began alpha phase development of seminary level courses of which I am grateful to have been a participant. I have done this everyday (for about an hour each day) since I began, and along the way I prayerfully asked questions of the Spirit regarding scripture and searched out the answers. For many of the questions, I had to leave them in the air for a long time for clarity to develop. Such seems to be the way of the Spirit- a glimpse here and there until the image becomes clearer. This blog site is a product of this process.
To address the role of women within the church, I am going to point you in the direction I believe the Spirit has led me. First, now that we are thinking about the context, the history, and the culture of the first century communities of Christ followers, what do we see when we back up to look at the whole of the Story? The New Testament overview gives us a glimpse of the human condition and the New Humanity that the Spirit is forming for the New Creation. The words given to these people at this time offer wisdom for us in our time.
The purpose of the videos are to provide a quick summary of each letter, describing its audience, themes, and structure. Within this framework, Paul’s word make more sense.
After looking at the New Testament story and the whole of some the letters considered contentious, I will address a few ideas that are sticking points. What is meant by “head”? What does it mean to “be silent”? What is meant by “authority” in Timothy?
An Overview of the New Testament
Note that the Good News is Jesus restoring humanity and creation. The ways of the Garden will be similar to the ways of the New Creation- the lion laying alongside the lamb, an end to all hostilities and hierarchical divisions. This is not about setting up a new religion or a new law to replace the old laws. This is about being “in Messiah.”
The Letter to the Corinthians
The church in Corinth faced threats to this Good News. This summary video presents them and points the church to the simplicity of the Good News. In this letter, Paul writes some things that seem to reinforce a gender hierarchy. He also writes things about dress and head-coverings. What it meant to them provides wisdom for us. Reading anachronistically would force us to hear first century customs and traditions as if they were dropped unchanged into the twenty-first century. The challenge is to have eyes to see and ears to hear.
The intent of this letter is to restore order and unify the community by calling them to be distinct. There are interesting parallels between this letter and Leviticus, especially given that Paul was a Torah scholar (notably, the call to be a distinct and holy people developed around honoring God and loving neighbor as in Leviticus 19, or examine yourself before coming to the Lord as in Leviticus 17; references to idolatry and sexual conduct are unmistakable- the Torah is all though his writing). They are to reflect Jesus to the community by the way they love one another and by the way they love Christ (thus the “love” chapter of 1 Corinthians 13). Love edifies.
Notice how Paul responds to a threat to the Gospel here as opposed to the way Saul responded to the threat of the Gospel before meeting Jesus. The call is to reflect Jesus, see Jesus rather than invoke violence or harsh law. His leadership demonstrated voluntary submission and an “origin” style of leadership that was not domineering. Is there anything from the culture and the threat it presented to the Good News that shaped the words Paul wrote to this community?
Aphrodite: sex, hair, dress
When I read scripture I make it a priority to follow up on things that seem weird. Why would Paul say stuff about the manner of dress and head-coverings and angels and all that? To what in their culture does this relate? I do think, for the purposes of this discussion, that the ornate dress and hair is a minor point, but I touch on it to show the cultural relevance.
Without diving to far into this, Corinth was a center of Aphrodite worship. Like Paul’s letter to Titus, contrasting the gods of the city with the Messiah was important. Aphrodite was a goddess of beauty. She had long flowing hair, dressed in ostentatious garments (or depicted nude), and wore ornate jewelry (from Hephaestus, a lover/ spouse).
Aphrodite represents the sexual expression of woman in this society. She was brash and ostentatious and given to pursing her appetites. Paul challenged followers of Christ to be humble, considerate, and be driven by love for one another though Christ. Society elevated women by means of wealth or roles as cultic priests. Notice how the Good News elevates women “in Christ.”
Paul calls the community to be submissive to the needs of one another. The patriarchal rite to do what you want is not the way of a Jesus community. To the wealthy, clothe yourself in good deeds. To the poor, take pride in sharing the low position Christ took, thereby identifying with Him. Does eating meat sacrificed to idols hurt your brother? Forgo your rights for their sake. Look out for the needs of the other. This is subversive to a society centered on fulfillment of desires for the strong. Perhaps the worship practices of this culture influenced Paul’s writings on how to remain distinct in important ways as members of the Christ community.
Numbers 5 shares similar language as 1 Corinthians 11. When the spirit of jealousy moved through the camp and a woman was accused of infidelity while under the covering of her husband, her head would be uncovered and she would take the bitter water. If she was guilty, she would drink judgement and death. If she was innocent, or so it goes, the priest’s blessing would protect her. Though Paul seems to make reference of the Torah to draw parallels, he does not stay there. While jealousy and the law of jealousy is at work here, he advocates the royal law of love and liberty. There is mercy for all who come to the table.
The stuff about head coverings does not prohibit prophesy, or speaking God’s message of justice and mercy. It only addresses the manner. A culture accustomed to ecstatic sexually charged rites of worship needed to know that this community was different. Also, sexual appetites were no different than gastronomical appetites. (Paul addresses this in 1 Corinthians 7, directly relating the appetites for food and sex, reminding believers that Christ was raised by the power of God. These powers do not reign. Your body belongs to the Lord.) Plato and Aristotle both support the dual nature of spirt and matter and that a man’s desires were to be placated. Creating distinction from the religious cults, rather than adopting their practices, was critical in preserving the Good News- our Messiah and King has come.
“keep silent”, “to speak”
“All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful…not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each for the well-being of the other” writes Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. He moves to living as you were called. This world is passing, so be at peace and content, knowing that God can use you as you are. Do not worry about being single or a widow, God honors you. Be sensitive to one another in light of this. Love edifies (1 Corinithians 8, and theme of the entire letter). Out of love, deny yourself for one another (1 Corinthians 9) . Those who preach or proclaim the gospel, should do so from living out the gospel (see 1 Corinthians 9:14). Here, Paul claims that he has not been abusing his authority, in contrast to those teachers for profit. “Though free, I have made myself a servant to all (9:19)”. Paul will move into abuse of authority and the call to voluntary submission as a way of life for all Christians, not just women. Again, what does Paul say to men? Live out the gospel, serve one another, do not abuse authority, and voluntarily submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. The law of love, not jealousy and striving is a hallmark of Christ followers (an in the Torah and in Corinth).
Paul then calls all Christians to be self-controlled and bring the body and its appetites under subjection. To be governed by these appetites is idolatry as he writes about in 1 Corinthians 10. 1 Corinthian 11 uses word kome (long, ornamental hair) and not thrix (just hair) as he moves from the threat of idolatry to its expression. Regarding “the head”, I will cover that more in the section on Ephesians. But the issue of Numbers 5 comes here. Idolatry and adultery are linked throughout the Tanakh (examples being Exodus, Numbers, Amos, and Hosea). When you come to the assembly of priests (all of us), you drink judgement upon yourself, which affects the community, if you are mired in idolatry. Then Paul returns to the theme of waiting for one another and conduct and spiritual unity. 1 Corinthians 12: “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one of us for the profit of all.” The word “each” includes women. The word “all” suggests that it is helpful, it edifies men and women. There is only one Spirit, one body. Of all the gifts, including prophesy, Paul exhorts the church to pursue love. Then he describes love in 1 Corinthians 13. Note how it contrasts to the issues of the church. What are the issues? Jealousy, ostentatious displays, arrogance (“much knowledge puffs up”) start us off. This fits with the themes of the book. So Paul shows us what “love edifies” looks like. It is koinonia. And he returns to edification from love in chapter 14.
When you assemble, do so orderly and in honor of one another, “…each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edificatioin. (1 Corinthians 14:26). Again, these instructions are to women also, and regard the assembly, just as the rest of the letter.
Paul now instructs this assembled group of men and women to keep silent if there is no interpreter. Regarding revelation, let the first keep silent. Why does he want them to keep silent. Is it not lawful for them to speak? Yes, but it is not helpful. Chaos in the assembly is the concern. He does not want this to break out into an ecstatic display like an Aphrodite temple, where impulses govern. Now he addresses women: “keep silent.” The word he uses for all three in this passage is siago, which means “not to talk". Why would Paul tell these women not to talk during worship? Why did he tell them all not to talk at times? In Luke (9, 18, 20), siago is used to tell of how the disciples were silent at the words of Jesus. In Acts (12, 15) it refers to a crowd “holding their peace.” In Romans 16 it refers to the mystery of the gospel “kept secret (same word).” Paul did not use the word phimoo, which is “forced silence.” Jesus used this word when the demons started to say too much. It was a command by one in authority. Paul did not go this route. In no way are Paul’s words here an imperative command for women to not teach, pray, prophesy, or provide revelation in the assembly.
What he says is not “to talk’, laleo, in the midst of an assembly and thereby generate chaos and over-talking. It is the same reason for all three uses of siago here. These women, like the men, are to be in voluntary submission (hupotassomai) for the benefit of others. This also relates to the agapao all Christians are to demonstrate. This is the law we see in effect regarding meat sacrificed to idols, the Lord’s Supper, conduct of the body, and public worship. There is no law prohibiting women from speaking or teaching. Paul did not use the word aver, which is to speak, teach, proclaim, or declare. He could have. He did not. The law of love is the only law to which Paul repeatedly appeals. Which may be why 1 Corinthians 13 precedes 14.
If you have questions, ask your husband at home. Why? Because their questions were disrupting the assembly. This also assumes that these are married women, because it says ask your husbands. At the very least, unmarried women should be allowed to speak since this application is to married women only. It is shameful for women (and men, as implied in the earlier text) to create disorder because of self-interest.
However, once again, Paul seems to contradict himself. Can “all things be lawful” for us in Christ and at the same time subject women to a law? Paul would appear to be just as wishy-washy as he was with meat and circumcision. There is no law in the Torah (there was for circumcision though!) about this. Some have used Genesis 3 to suggest a law, but the curse is not on those “in Christ,” and it is certainly not a law. There may be a law in rabbinical writing. There where certainly rabbis with low opinions of women. If that is the case, then we subject ourselves to the Midrash, which obligates us to it in all aspects. If it was a law in Corinth then that too subjects us to following all laws of first century Corinth. If you take Paul’s statement as a universal directive for all time, then that makes Paul a law-giver, a new Moses. Yet this is exactly what Dietrich Bonhoeffer refers to as cited in the opening: the law becomes God, God a law. He also writes in Cost of Discipleship of Christ being the One through whom we relate to each other and to God. We no longer relate to one another through the hostility of the law.
Some might say: “well, it’s in the Bible, so I think it best we do exactly as it says.” Really? Jesus told the rich young ruler (the trifecta of this world’s values) to sell all his stuff, give it to the poor, and follow Him. But that was Jesus to a specific person; this is different. Not different. Paul is giving specific instructions to a specific group of people. He does say “let your women.” So, to be literal, at most, it forbids married women in Corinth to talk during church. Furthermore, if you insist on reading scripture as a law book to follow as is, then have you sold all your stuff to give to the poor; do you lift holy hands when you pray; do you greet with a holy kiss; do you drink wine or take Pepcid for your stomach...? Similarly, this is the same line of thinking that eventually justified slavery. Where do you stand on that issue?
The Aristotelean hierarchies were wrong for slaves; they are just as wrong regarding women.
We read with discernment provided by the Holy Spirit. Paul’s back and forth on certain stipulations reveal this to be true. We consider the discourse of Jesus regarding the Holy Spirit and allow the Spirit to govern us. The Spirit spoke through Paul to the church in Corinth regarding the issues facing them. The message of Paul is the law of love and liberty. Your liberty is regulated by a love for the other that edifies. You love them because they are in Christ and Christ is in them. Sometimes, giving someone an opportunity to speak edifies, like when young boys are given the podium. However, withholding this calling from our girls does not edify them. What do you think our girls hear in this? Probably the same thing the women have heard. For some reason, likely because the women addressed in Corinth were being disruptive by their manner of talk, the edifying thing is to voluntary silence yourself out of consideration of others. This commendation to these women to be silent, applied today, fits more with the chaotic chatter in the foyer while the service is in process rather than anything specific to gender.
1 Corinthians 14: 36 does not refer to women, but to the church of Corinth (“your women”, now '“…from you”). It occurs to me that these verses are addressing those who are ignorant or deny Paul’s teachings, yet long to act as a prophet. Perhaps some of the talking derives from false teaching with the desire to appear spiritual and important. Following this, Paul seemingly back pedals. To the church, he encourages them to prophesy. Do not forbid the speaking (laleo) that is in tongues. Forbid women to talk during the assembly, unless they are talking in the Spirit. The summary of this whole section from Paul is this (v 40): “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
Paul then moves onto the resurrection and defines the Good News.
Then comes the end when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts and end to all rule and all authority and all power. For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
God will be all and in all. All things will be made subject to Him alone. The Good News is that we are seated in the “Not Yet” while we live in this “Present Age,” The church is called to pray for the Kingdom to come here as in heaven, presenting that image to the world. No one subject to another because of rule or authority, but because of love, because Christ is all and in all. He then moves through the ideas of the corruptible putting on the incorruptible. Will things be different when heaven is on earth? Then the law is revisited. 1 Corinthians 15: 56, “The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.” Who delivers us from this? Who are all immersed in? It is Jesus. What about that law earlier? Sounds like it stings and causes death, unless it is the law of love and liberty in Christ that calls us all to His Philippians 2 Imago Dei.
Chapter 16 wraps up mentioning the Ephesians and Timothy (which is the next section). Paul summarizes the letter this way, “Let all you do be done with love.” In short, love edifies. Let this be the rule for the church.
Point: The issue at hand is not about what men and women cannot do. The issue at hand is demonstrating the Good News of Jesus in the midst of a culture centered on self-fulfillment and pursing every appetite. A community “in Messiah” is different. They edify one another in love.
The Letter to the Ephesians
The church of Ephesus contends with false teachers. The false teaching is not about women. Paul reminds them of the Good News and then describes how this would look in the Roman world we have seen thus far. Again, note how he moves away from Aristotle and turns the community to look to Jesus.
Paul moves from the “open-secret” of the Gospel. Chapter 3 gets back to the idea of the Good News being “known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.” Then, like in Corinthians, he move to a walk in unity in the Spirit that is based on love and for whom gifts are given to edify one another in the Spirit. This theme, as seen in 1 Corinthians, is recurring. Putting on the incorruptible is described as participating in the New Humanity, a humanity unlike what we know under the curse. He addresses speech again in Ephesians 4 as speaking only what edifies. Do not speak words that are corrupt or corrupting. Referring back to Leviticus and Temple language, he charges the Ephesians to walk in love as Christ, a sweet aroma and living sacrifice for God. He then calls them to walk in wisdom. Whose wisdom? The wisdom of the Spirit of Christ. What does it look like? Mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21).
As mentioned earlier, hupotasso is literally to “set or place under.” “Be setting yourselves under one another out of reverence for Christ.” In a traditional shame-honor society, this radical and we need to hear it that way. Paul links this idea to the next section in Ephesians with this statement. In fact, there is no verb in the next line (v 22) leading into the examples. There are a couple of interpretations of this, one reinforcing the hierarchy of the time, another liberating from it, but aware that the missionary strategy of Paul is to declare how it would look in their society to treat each other with the reverence of Christ. However, the social status in a rigid society is a status given by ‘the powers’ and relativized “in Christ.”
John Barclay writes in Paul and the Gift, p.435:
Ephesians 5:21 is parallel to Galatians 5:13 “become slaves of one another through love.” This expression adjusts an intently hierarchical relationship (slavery) not by cancelling it, in the name of ‘equality’ but making it reciprocal, a hierarchy that turns both ways. The simple but powerful word “one another” a turns one-way relationship of power and superiority into a mutual relationship of reciprocal deference, where each seeks to promote the interests of the other.
This is not just a metaphor. In Romans society, roughly half of the population was in slavery. Put yourself at a lower social rank, thus emulate Christ.
The Head
As mentioned earlier, Paul subverts Aristotelean philosophy by addressing the subordinates first. Ephesians 5:23 then gets to the kephale, or “head.” Paul calls the husband “the head,” then the Messiah “the head”, then “Deliverer.” Why the nuance here? Is Paul’s primary connotation referring to who is in charge or authority? Women, or girls more accurately, were teenagers when they were married off. The husband was typically mid twenties to forties. If Paul was going to spell out an authority narrative of head, this would be the place. But the imagery he uses is of one who delivers, one who cares for, and one who performs domestic duties (earlier mentioned the verbs of this section as related to typical duties of female servant- sanctify, clean, wash, present, iron out wrinkles, nourish, cherish). The relationship of slave-master is even more charged in this world, and here Paul says there is no such hierarchal rank in Jesus.
So what does kephale mean? One camp says Paul is affirming an essential creation order for the role of a wife as a subordinate. Another view, is that the linguistic evidence for head as authority is absent. What kephale depicts, and is consistent with the call to be a Deliverer, is “origin, source, protector, guider.” If you grew up hearing Josephus or Aristotle, what you heard in the house church of Ephesus was radically different either way. Marshaling Paul to defend gender equality is not reading Paul’s purpose though. John Barclay makes this point in Paul and the Gift. It is the gift of Grace that is the point, and not equality for equality’s sake. The New Humanity that Paul proclaims departs from the powers that govern and enslave into a New Creation status of equal value, worth, and rank in Christ. What was the heartbeat of Paul’s letter? Each of us participate in the New Creation through a liturgy of life. The duties of a woman are related to the action of the Messiah and confer the same responsibility onto the husband.
If Paul had started in Ephesians 5, it would have created anarchy. By establishing the apocalyptic imagination, the church had a framework to establish how the New Humanity will come about without breaking down into chaos. This New Humanity is described in Ephesians 4. The Messiah is the head. Can we have a body that is appropriate for the head? This humanity starts with a head from which the body grows. So what is the activity of the head?
Sourcing. Kephale refers to source or origin. In our culture, in our time, the inferred nuance of authority exists. This did not exist in Greco-Roman times of the first century. In Ephesians, Colossians, and Corinthians, Paul spells out this idea of head with “source” imagery. In fact, ancient Greek dictionaries and texts list kephale, and none of these have an entry where the primary usage of the word means authority. Other ancient Greek meanings include the literal” head,” literal “source”, or methaphorical “prominent.”
In Hebrew, head (“rosh”) often refers to leaders (roughly 170 times). The controversy is if he is using Hebrew understanding ,but writing to a non-Jewish Greek speaking audience. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament , by Lindell-Scott-Jones, refutes the use of kephale to mean authority: “ancient secular (Greek) usage of (kepahle) is not employed for the head of a society (Heirch Schier, p 674). In Orphic Fragment (p168): “Zeus is the head (kephale), Zeus is the middle, and from all things exist.” (Note the similarity to Paul’s writings here?) Pavne, Man and Woman, One in Christ (p126-127) states that Greek has other words for leader… but the word head is not used that way.” In ancient Greek, the head was thought be the source of all information, perception, and provision for the entire body. From this sense, it controlled the body as its source of information. Hippocrates described it this way in The Sacred Disease (p 178). Plato and Diocles said that the brain and spinal marrow were the source of semen. Praxagoras, Deomcritus, and Hippocrates said no, semen is secreted from the whole body.
Jewish-Greek contemporaries of Paul used kephale to mean ”premium source” from the Second Temple Period on. Referring to a man, it meant progenitor. From On Mating (p 61) Philo of Alexandria called Esau the head of his clan: “Like the head (kephale) of a living creature, Esau is the progenitor of the clan mentioned so far.” Of the roughly twenty uses of he word “head” in Paul’s letter, the word head is almost always bound up with the body of Christ imagery and context.
His many references to Jesus as “head” occurs in the context of his role as “source” and “creator.” Colossians 1:18: He is before all things and in Him all things are held together; -(recognize Zeus citation; is Paul using culture to point to Jesus) He is the kephale…”
If we read authority into head, we grossly misunderstand three parallels found in 1 Corinthias 11:13: Messiah is head of man, man is the head of woman, and God is head of the Messiah. By default, this would make the Son eternally subordinate to the Father. However, understanding head to mean source or origin, then it makes more sense. Messiah is the origin of humanity. 1 Corinthians 11 refers back to Genesis 2, furthering his point of man being the source of woman. God as origin of Messiah fills out the idea of the Son being sent from the Father. See Cyril of Alexandria, On Right Belief, (5:131) and Chrysostom, Homily on Corinthians, 12:150-151). Is “eternal subordination” the right framework to think of Jesus to the Father? Or does the parallel describe voluntary self yielding?
How we read Ephesians 4 then affects how we read Ephesians 5. The Son yields to the Father’s will as an act of love. Is authority the right framework here? Jesus does not seem to talk about it that way. How does the nuance of kephale satisfy the vision of a New Humanity? This is why its so vital to hold to the vision of the Good News that Paul lays out.
Covenant oneness resounds here. The Father and Son are united as one, man and woman are to be united as the same body (love her as you love your own body), and this body is to united to and one with Christ. This is the fulfillment of the New Creation. This is the restoration of the Garden and the Temple. The powers are no longer in control.
Point: Paul is not inducing anarchy. He is negotiating a complex reality. He is not affirming the culture, but neither is he scrapping it. He takes pre-existing material and shapes a whole new worldview out of it.
The Letter to Timothy in Ephesus
Luke 8 mentions Mary, Joanna, and Susanna as women who supported Jesus. This was not uncommon. In Ephesus, false teachers are at it again, and they have gained the ear and support of influential women in the community. Why did the false teachers go after them? They had wealth and influence. This is not uncommon. They likely did not have the benefit of education, yet were eager to learn and be known as learned. With wealth came privilege and pride. Is the Good News advanced by this or is it advanced by humility and service? What are these “genealogies and strange doctrines”? Well it is not about women teaching, but how and what they are teaching.
Paul addresses threats to the Gospel that he addressed elsewhere: disruptive teachers, selfish ambition, falsehoods related to Jewish- Greek myth syncretism, striving for power as opposed to mutual submission, respect versus exalting self because of new status in Christ, idle versus diligent service, and the use of power and wealth versus good deeds and humility. Whatever the issues here, there are certainly women involved.
While too early for the gnosticism of the gnostic gospel, early gnostic ideas were present. Tertullian writes about this in his address of the Valentinians. “To the King, immortal, invisible, and only wise God” is unusual phrasing for Paul. Why here? It does bear similarities to phrasing as cited by Tertulian regarding the Gnostics and Jewish myths. Perhaps, as in other examples, he is countering the false teaching with pointing out the Truth to whom these words (“immortal light”) should actually apply (Zeus example earlier). Does it relate, as he does in other letters, to something of the threat to the Gospel that he is addressing? The letters of Peter reflect this as well. I do not feign to be an expert in this, but the ideas of Eve (Sophia) being the origin, greater, and wiser because she pursued knowledge, along with the aenon genealogies regarding differing manifestations of the Divine and the Divine Feminine, do share parallels with these letters. Given the unusual ideas (especially in Peter) this at least makes sense.
One thing to note is that Paul actually wants all to learn in quietness and humility. He tells those of the Thessalonican community to “make it your ambition to lead quiet lives, attend to your own matters, and work with your hands.” The manner of learning was not limited to women. The whole thing about being “silent” is contentious because how it is translated from Greek.
Silence
First, the same directions given are to men, using the same words: silence or quiet (hesychia) and godliness (eusebeia) are used for both men and woman, only it is translated “silence” for women. These are similar to what Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 4 as well. These are characteristics of all believers. Hesychia means quietness, calm, tranquility. Are women to learn? Yes. Her conduct in learning is no different than the men of 1 Timothy 2: 2. So what does Paul say exactly? Pray and give thanks that we may lead a heyschia and peaceable (same idea) life all eusebeia and reverence. Men no longer have violent and double-minded hands, but hands lifted up and devoted for service to God. (Contrast to the men of the culture). Women, dress with modesty and humility, which befits doing good works. Learn heyschia and peaceably. Do not lift yourself up to teach in a domineering way (authentiin didaskein). The manner of lifestyle and dress in Ephesian Christ followers must reflect the call to a peaceful and godly life. These women of influence were not just creating issue with their dress, but also in their domineering way of teaching falsehood. And, possibly, were creating problems for the widows as well.
The fact that Lois and Eunice taught Timothy, and Paul was greatly impressed by Timothy, suggests that they were quiet and godly women who were not ignorant (as in I Corinthians), but well informed and capable of teaching. They taught a man effectively and were not domineering. Incidentally, domineering men are not to teach either. The description of leaders in 1 Timothy 3 expounds upon the quiet and godly lifestyle fit for instructing others.
In Titus, Paul says the same things: do not listen to these fables, do good works, be peaceable, show humility. More on that later, but it is the same idea.
Paul’s instructions are not universal mandates for reasons discussed earlier. For us to establish such a hierarchy does not promote the apocalyptic vision or mission strategy Paul used in Ephesus, Corinth, and elsewhere. We read elsewhere that Paul supported women in leadership in churches like Philippi, Thessalonica, and Rome.
There are many ways you can take the section about Eve being deceived and finding salvation in child-bearing. My response is this, these women were deceived by the same original sin of coveting. They heard a message that promised a form of spirituality, and with it prominence and esteem. They bit. Just as sin entered the world through deception, so too sin will infect the church through deception. You can say a lot about the child-bearing part. For instance, the first-born being a redeemer as mentioned in Exodus 13 or Christ being born of a woman to save all. I think it may be simpler. I think as Paul points out, these women are idle and rich. To achieve godliness, join the community. Settle down. Have children. Nothing brings about maturity more than being responsible for raising a child within a community. You will learn self-control, holiness, faith, and love in the process. It is a testament of God’s beautiful plan. If nothing else, it is a contrast to the salvation taught by the syncretism of these myths and genealogies.
Paul closes the letter with a call to abandon the desire to be rich. “The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.” He says this has led many away from the faith. Read in context of 1 Timothy 2, these influential women spreading deception and seeking wealth fits the narrative. He follows this with what seems to be words that dispute Gnostic ideas by reinforcing who Christ is and our calling. He closes with more instructions to the rich: be rich in good works (like his instructions to women earlier) and ready to give (as opposed to seeking wealth and glory). This he coupled with idle babbling and false knowledge. This is the theme of the letter. Not women being silent. It is false teaching, seeking your own status, seeking wealth, living idle and boisterous lives versus lives that are tranquil and godly, trusting and thankful to the Living God.
Authentin: Authentein is used only once in the New Testament, but a related noun, authentēs, is found in other ancient Greek literature where it is used in reference to violent crimes including murder, suicide and even child sacrifice.
But Paul says a woman is forbidden from having authority over a man, right?
More from Marg Mowczko Re: 1 Timothy 2:12:
The word typically used of authority, exousia, is not used here.
Cynthia Long Westfall (2016:292), who has studied authent– words for many years, observes: “In the Greek corpus, the verb authenteō refers to a range of actions that are not restricted to murder or violence. However, the people who are targets of these actions are harmed, forced against their will (compelled), or at least their self-interest is being overridden, because the actions involve an imposition of the subject’s will, ranging from dishonour to lethal force.”
Authentin is typically used to mean”bully” or “dominate”. It is more common in second century work, which has been a point of dispute regarding authorship and timing of the letter. Authentein is used only once in the New Testament, but a related noun, authentēs, is found in other ancient Greek literature where it is used in reference to violent crimes including murder, suicide and even child sacrifice. Also, the apparent references to Gosnotic thought were more prominent in the second century. This type of leadership is directly refuted for men and women in 1 Timothy 3. Chrysostom advices husbands not authentei (bully, domineer, “exercise authority”) in Homily 10 on Colossians. This behavior does not reflect Christ and does not edify the church, regardless of gender.
Systematic theologian Dr. John Jefferson Davis offers his scholarly two cents: “It should also be observed that Paul, had he the ordinary exercise of ecclesiastical leadership and authority in mind, had at his disposal a number of words that could have served this sense, notably proisteimi. This latter word, occurring eight times in the NT, and used six times by Paul in reference to church leaders (I Timothy 3:4, 5, 12; I Timothy 5:17; I Thessalonians 5:12; Romans 12:8), can have the senses of ‘manage, conduct, rule, direct, be concerned about’, and connotes the type of ‘normal’ and ‘expected’ type of leadership that should be exhibited by those selected to lead. The fact that a highly unusual and ambiguous word is chosen in 2:12 would be consistent with an unusual set of circumstances in the context to which the text is addressed. It will be argued … that these circumstances, as indicated by clear references in the Pastoral Epistles themselves, involve women who are being deceived by false teachers, and as such are not suitable for the exercise of teaching or ruling authority in Ephesus.”
Another important consideration in interpreting and understanding 1 Timothy 2:12 is the conjunction oude which joins didaskein (“to teach”) with authentein. In New Testament Greek, words joined by the correlative conjunction oude may join to make a single point. They may even share and blend their meanings to some extent. So Paul may well have been prohibiting a kind of teaching that was unacceptable in some way.
Regarding false teaching and that business about Eve
The Gnosis Archive at gnosis.org writes in “The Gnostic World View: A Brief Summary of Gnosticism” about things found in Timothy, Jude and the Letters of Peter. Gnosticism blames God, not humans for the fall of creation. God did not actually create anything, but everything emanated from Him. There are many variations of Gnostic myths, but all refer to Aenons as intermediary beings. Sophia (“Wisdom”) is a Divine Feminine, self-generating and presumed herself to be the Absolute God. There are countless genealogies of the Demiurges in their mythology. The psychic and material cosmos were thought to come from her. To Gnostics, salvation is not from the power of sin, but from ignorance of the divine nature. Each individual is responsible for their own salvation. Intermingling Jewish teaching with these myths, Eve was noble in seeking to deliver herself from ignorance. In the second century, more Jewish and Christian teaching was syncretized with these stories. Whether or not this is exactly what the some of the New Testament writers refer to, I cannot say with certainty. However, it is clear that, if not this, something along these lines was becoming a threat to the Gospel. Tertulian and other early Christian writers certainly gave credence to the idea that the seed bed of the Gnostic gospels was already planted during the time of this letter. (See “Tertulian: Against the Valentinains” on the Gnosis Archive).
From Marg Mowczko re: “The Heresy in the Ephesian Church”:
Gnosticism rapidly grew at the same time, and in many of the same places, where the gospel was advancing. It would develop into highly organised and complicated mythological systems during the second and third centuries. However, the beginnings of gnostic-like beliefs are evident in the New Testament. Several New Testament letters address various problems associated with gnostic-like beliefs, in particular, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter and John’s letters. There was not one religion or one sect of Gnosticism but several schools of thought that shared some similar ideas. Broadly speaking, Gnostics held to a complex cosmology with numerous divine entities, and they held to a creation myth that was quite unlike the creation accounts in the Bible but nevertheless derived from Genesis chapters 1-6. Like Platonists, they believed that matter was bad, or not real, and that spirit was good and truth. They believed that salvation was achieved when one ascended to the realm of the deities and became acquainted with, or had knowledge of the divine, at which time the divine spark, or spirit, or mind was released from its material earthly body. Gnosticism was elitist and exclusive, and the claim was that only a few people could achieve gnosis. For the Gnostics, Christ is a divine being, one of many aeons. Still, he is the redeemer who revealed the true truth necessary for salvation. This “truth” is that some people are themselves divine or contain a divine spark.
Tertullian provides a detailed account and refutation of the Valentinians. (Some scholars consider the Valentinians as Gnostic, while other scholars assert they borrowed ideas from Gnostics but were not Gnostics themselves.) In chapter 3 of Against the Valentinians (c. 200-220), Tertullian writes, “. . . as soon as he finds so many names of aeons, so many marriages, so many offsprings, so many exits, so many issues, felicities and infelicities of a dispersed and mutilated deity, will that man hesitate at once to pronounce that these are ‘the fables and endless genealogies’ which the inspired apostle by anticipation condemned, while these seeds of heresy were even then shooting forth?” Irenaeus wrote a five-volume work (c. 180) in which he identified and refuted several sects, or systems, of Gnosticism. This work is commonly called Against Heresies; however, its true or full title is: On the Detection and Overthrow of the Falsely-called Knowledge (Greek: Gnōsis). Irenaeus exactly copied Paul’s expression from 1 Timothy 6:20, “falsely-called knowledge”, for the title. This work opens with Irenaeus remarking on “endless genealogies”, a phrase copied from 1 Timothy 1:4. Irenaeus recognised traits of Gnosticism in 1 Timothy. Eusebius (263–339) also used Paul’s phrase of “falsely-called knowledge” when he mentions “the league of godless error [that] took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers.” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 3.32.8) According to Eusebius, this occurred following the deaths of the first successors of the twelve apostles.
As with Corinthians, the manner of dress is again an issue. As in Corinthians, it is the cultural message and call to distinction for humility and good works that concerns Paul. There are many more things to discuss about first century Greco-Roman hair and dress as it related to status and cultic worship. It is enough to say that his desire was to see the church set apart.
Point: Suffice it to say, Paul is addressing specific false teaching in the church. He is not telling women to earn salvation through childbirth as if a new requirement. The implication is that he is telling women who are usurping authority and teaching syncretic teaching (as was common in Hellenized culture) to settle in to the rhythms of a “quiet life, attending to your own affairs, and working with your hands.” Raise children, engage in a life devoted to others and to the community rather than a life seeking to exalt yourself.
The Letter to Titus
Titus is vey similar to Timothy. The video says all I want to say. Read the letter and note the phrases that repeat. Like in Ephesians, the role of husband and wife emerges. The hupatasso concept returns and some translate it is a command for men to dominate or have authority over their wives. The wife is called to obey. As in Ephesians, this is a misunderstanding with horrible consequences in some cases. “Voluntary submission” as Christ voluntarily submitted to the Father is the term. We are called to voluntarily place ourselves under the other. This is the way of Christ. So, women of Crete, be distinct from your culture. Love your husband. Live a self-controlled life. If you live the wantonness and boisterous life, the Good News will be of no effect and become blasphemed within the culture.
Within our culture and our time, what has caused the Good News to be blasphemed? Do our actions and liturgy advance the apocalyptic vision of the Good News, or capitulate to the powers as Aristotle described them over two centuries ago? What does His gift of Grace look like in Brentwood, TN in 2020? Part III will peek into this room, closing out this exploration of roles of women during the first century Greco-Roman church as we consider its wisdom for today.
From Josh Garrels, “Indiana Sky”:
Follow the rhythm of
All that cultivates our love
And every star that hangs above
Will rejoice with us each night
We waited for so long
To hear the Spirit's song
And He wants us to sing
It's time to taste and see
All the things you're meant to be
It ain't too late to try
And it's not too soon to fly
