PART 6 #1 What about the Apostle Paul...did he down grade Women?

How Paul viewed Women!

EVEN THE FEMINIST'S AGREE WITH THIS TEACHING..SUPRISED?

Paul compared to the practice of Jesus ! Jesus vs. The Rabbi's--with a Look at Paul's VIEW! Jesus disagreed with the Rabbi's that association with women led inevitably to lust. The logic that led to segregation within Rabbinix found no place in Jesus' teaching. Jesus does not warn his followers against looking at women, but rather against doing so in lust. Women's association and traveling with the apostolic band was NOT to be restricted due to the "natural desires of men"! Paul never segregated women at all. He actively sought them out and set up operations in their homes (Lydia, Acts 16). Women and men were supposed to worship together (I Cor 11-14), and women were to pray and prophesy in church (e.g. I Cor 11.4). He actually warns the young church against 'forced celibacy' in I Tim 4.3!] Jesus asserted that a woman could divorce her husband; the Rabbi's said only a MAN could initiate divorce "Thus far it should be clear that divorce was always the right and responsibility of the husband to initiate. Jewish law was asymmetrical in this respect, as opposed to Roman law, which grants the wife the right to divorce her husband.") Paul apparently asserts the same standard in I Cor 7.13: "And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him..] Jesus touched "unclean women" (e.g. the woman with the flow of blood in Mt 9.18ff); Rabbi's would not do so. Actually, we don't have a similar situation in the historical narrative. We simply don't have any data on this one. Although, given Paul's general position and practice toward the ritual of the Law, I would expect this to be a non-issue for him, as per Romans 14.1-18 Romans 14:1-18 " Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men." Jesus not only spoke freely with women, healed them, allowed them to touch him and to bring their children to see him, he also allowed them to serve him. This was not, of course, unusual in a family situation, but it was unusual for a Rabbi, as the Rabbis strongly disapproved of women even serving them at tables. Paul consistently let women help him! He refers often to women as 'fellow-laborers' and helpers. Phil 4.3; Rom 16.1-2, 6, 12, et.al. Phoebe in Rom 16.1-2 is specially called a "deaconess"--a server, and he obviously stayed at Lydia's home (Acts 16).] "Rabbinic parables pointedly avoided mentioning women, but Jesus often told stories relating to the life of women." Although Paul doesn't use a lot of stories, he doesn't shy away from stories or comparisons centered around women! The comparison of Sarah and Hagar in Gal 4.21ff , or of HIMSELF and a mother--I Thess 2.7. He uses the same household 'yeast' metaphors as Jesus--I Cor 5; Gal 5. ] Jesus often spoke to women in public; Jewish men shunned this (Aboth 1:5)This is fairly obvious, for Paul preaches to women in public consistently, speaks directly to them in Religious settings (Lydia), works with them in private homes (Priscilla), addresses them in his correspondence (Phil 4.2; Philemon 2). There seems to be no setting in which Paul does NOT address a woman!] Jesus conversed at length with the Samaritan woman (surprising even his disciples!); Rabbi's would not do so--Samaritan women were considered "perpetual menstuants"! (Niddah 4.1] Although Paul obviously traveled THROUGH Samaria (Acts 15.3), it does not give us any data one way or another on this matter.]Women were used as witnesses in the resurrection accounts; they were not allowed as witnesses (generally) under Rabbinic law. The closest data we have to this type of situation is two-fold: (1) that Paul entrusted the 'official' letter-carrying task to a women (Phoebe, Rom 16.1-2; cf. The 'official' status of this role in Acts 15.22f ); and (2) the fact that he admitted women prophets! (I Cor 11.4). They were also called his 'co-workers' They assisted in composing letters (Rom 16:22; I Thess 1:1), carried apostolic messages to local churches (1 Cor 4.17; 16:10-11), sought to encourage the believers on Paul's behalf (1 Thess 3:2), reported to Paul the status of congregations under his care (1 Thess 3:6) and even occasionally hosted house churches (1 Cor 16:19)...In view of this wide range of ministry, it would be ludicrous to deny that Paul's coworkers possessed authority in the churches (1 Cor 16:17-18)...a role which included the task of admonition (1 Thess 5:12)...Paul spoke readily of women, as well as men, as his coworkers. He allowed women to follow Him in His travels and ministry. "Jesus, too, knowingly overthrew custom when he allowed women to follow him." We don't know a lot about Paul's traveling companions, but we do know that Priscilla and Aquilla accompanied him on at least one journey, and that he recognized that he could have taken a wife along with him (I Cor 9.5). Obviously Phoebe was with Paul when he dispatched her to Rome (Rom 16.1-2).]Jesus taught women freely, and sometimes in standard Rabbinical "style" (e.g. Luke 10.38-42). Brown summarizes this contrast well: Jesus' attitude contrasts with the sentiments of the rabbis. In the Talmud, Rabbi Eliezer declared, 'There is no wisdom in a woman except with the distaff.' One version adds, 'It is better that the words of the Law should be burned, than that they should be given to a women.' In the Mishnah the same rabbi made a similarly strong statement when he said 'If a man gives his daughter a knowledge of the Law it is as though he taught her lechery.' Jesus broke with rabbinical tradition when he taught women and included them among his followers. It is clear that teaching women was NOT a problem to Paul. The account in Acts 16 shows that he publicly taught women and baptized them.] "He never used women as negative examples, as was so common in rabbinical teaching. He referred to women positively and used illustrations from their everyday lives to teach spiritual truths." The women Paul uses as examples are his co-workers; all highly favorable! E.g. Euodia & Syntche --"fought by his side" (Phil 4.3); Tryphena and Tryphosa (Rom 16.12). What negative examples he DOES have are exactly paired with men--Rom 1.]Jesus accepted and valued women highly; the famous prayer of Rabbi Judah would not have been found on His lips: "Blessed be Thou for not having made me a Gentile, a woman, or an ignoramus." (Tosephta Berakoth 7, 18.) Paul shatters the Rabbinic distinction in Gal 3.28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.. "Paul's statement in Galatians 3.28 is extraordinary for an ex-rabbi; it is very radical. The sexes are equal in salvation. Women have the same spiritual status before God as men. They are one in Christ." This quick overview sets up an expectation that we will still see the positive values of Jesus toward women, reflected in the actions and attitudes of Paul.
....................................................

A Recent feminist assessment of Paul

Let me quote from Rosemary Reuther (a very outspoken feminist theologian) who is drawing upon Elizabeth Fiorenza (a very outspoken feminist theologian). Neither of these could REMOTELY be called 'apologetically inclined' toward Paul(!): "It is generally assumed that Paul is the author of a Christianity of female subordination. But more recent studies have shown that the historical Paul in fact continued most of the assumptions and practices of early charismatic, inclusive Christianity. Indeed, most of the New Testament evidence that women functioned as local leaders, as well as traveling evangelists, is to be found in the Pauline letters. Paul addresses almost an equal number of women along with men (sixteen women and eighteen men) in his greetings to Church leaders in Romans 16. He mentions two women, Euodia and Syntche, as having preached the gospel "with Barnabas and me" in Philippians 4:2-3. He addresses a woman name Junia by the title of "apostle," and constantly refers to the husband and wife team, Priscilla and Aquila, as "Church leaders," usually naming Priscilla first. He also speaks of the prominent woman Phoebe by the title of both "deacon" and "prostasis" or leader, of her community. Paul received from the early Church both a practice of thus including women in the ministries of catechesis, prophecy, local Church leadership, and traveling evangelism (the role Paul calls that of "apostle"), and also a baptismal theology of male-female equivalence in Christ as reflected in the Galatians 3:28 reference. This formula was not original with Paul; he cites it from early Christian tradition. The Galatians baptismal text expresses the early Christian vision of the new humanity in Christ. It was consciously moulded to contrast with the traditions of rabbinic piety, adapted from Hellenistic philosophy, in which the Jewish male thanks God for having been born male and not female, free and not slave, and Jew rather than Gentile. By declaring that in Christ these divisions had been overcome and all these groups made "one," the early Christian stated the essence of his or her new identity as one where the equivalence of all humans in the image of God had been restored."

...........................................................

Paul's working relationships with women in the Church

Paul consistently utilized women as leaders in the early church, and called them by 'authoritative names' such as apostle, deacon, co-laborer, patron, 'hard worker'.

We did NOT examine I Tim 3.11, but, depending on how one understands the word there for women, Paul COULD be talking about female elders. If the term is understood as 'wives', then the passage is silent on the issue; if the term is understood as 'women', then Paul is indicating women elders. (Note: the 'husband of one wife' text is NOT an issue, since standard writing usage for brevity allows that to count for BOTH wife/husband cases...Similar to how we say "brothers" instead of "brothers and sisters" every time.) Likewise, Titus 2.2-3 is sometimes understood as the qualifications for male/female elders (so RSV).We also saw that congregations were told to "submit" to such as these (I Cor 16.16)--indicating positions with significant authority.We also saw that he used Priscilla to play a major role in discipling/teaching the gifted Apollos. In short, we have plenty of historical data that demonstrates his rather 'unrestricted' official usage of women as partners in the early church; we have NO narrative or historical data that even slightly suggests that he refused to 'allow' women to serve in ANY capacity. We will need to keep this in mind when we look at the controversial passages.
...........................................................

Controversial Pauline Passages

There are three main passages that we need to examine here: I Cor 11.3-16, I Cor 14.33-40, and I Tim 2.11-15. And, although many, many books have been written about each of these--and the subject--they still remain three of the most obscure and disputed passages in the Pauline corpus. I will not be able to resolve these passages to all satisfaction,because some only wish to DISPUTE, but I can at least give the evidence that leads me to believe that they do NOT constitute a contradiction between Paul's approval of women teachers/leaders in practice, and his teaching about women in such roles in these passages.

[There is another string of passages that are sometimes used to support a view that Paul restricted women from church leadership--the 'submit to your husband' verses WHICH I HAVE BLOGGED AN ANSWER TOO HERE: [What about Submission! ] (Eph 5.22; Col 3.18; Tit 2.). This is not a strictly Pauline injunction, of course, since it is also repeated by Peter in I Peter 3.1-6. Since it is sometimes understood/appealed to in support of the broader view that women should not have authority over men IN ANY SPHERE, I want to make some summary observations about this issue, and why it cannot be applied to church leadership positions.

First, it obviously applies ONLY to married women--not widows, not the unmarried, not divorces, not celibate. And correspondingly, any authority it imputes to males is ONLY TO MARRIED MEN. We have no reason to believe that marriage (and the survival of the spouse!) were qualifications of teaching positions (!!!!). We DO have POSITIVE evidence that it was NOT required--Paul, Timothy, Lydia, etc.

Second, the word for 'submission' in those passages is VERY different from the words used for slaves and children. They are told specifically to 'obey'--the wife is told to 'be submissive to'. This is a subtle but real difference. For example, when Paul says in Ephesians 5.22 "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" and then RE-STATES it in 5.33 as "the wife must respect her husband.", the meaning seems clear--the issue is respect and civility. [You must remember that the liberating effect of the Christian freedom in Christ--Gal 3.28--occasionally created 'hyper-liberated' women who showed public contempt and mistreatment of their husbands.]

Third, the Ephesians and Col. Passages are in the literary form of a "household code", but with a twist "Paul borrows this form of discussion straight from Greco-Roman moral writing. But unlike most ancient writers, Paul undermines the basic premise of these codes: the absolute authority of the male head of the house." And, at the summary verse .33, BBC adds "Although ancient moralists expected wives to respect their husbands (and Jewish teachers also expected the reverse), moralists usually also emphasized the wife's 'obedience'; Paul's exhortation to wives here would thus strike most ancient readers as quite weak."

Fourth, the "household code" is turned on its head by the intro in verse 21: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." BBC notes: "But although it was customary to call on wives, children and slaves to submit in various ways, to call all members of a group (including the paterfamilias, the male head of the household) to submit to one another was unheard-of." Verse 2--the call to MUTUAL submission--(the verb is 'shared' between 21 and 22, so there is no difference in quality) radically changes the nature of the household code. Fifth, the submission of wives to husbands was not on the basis of some gender-based authority; rather, it was a covenant-based relationship."As to the Lord' differs slightly from 'as is fitting in the Lord' in Colossians 3.18. In obeying her husband, the Christian wife is obeying the Lord who has sanctioned the marriage contract...The subjection, moreover, is voluntary, not forced. The Christian wife who promises to obey does so because her vow is 'as to the Lord'." Most marriage contracts had 'obedience' or 'submission' clauses in them, so in the context of a Christian marriage it was contract-based authority (i.e. the Lord) rather than gender-based authority that mattered. Sixth, the general tone of 'submission' verses for women is geared toward practical matters (and not more fundamental theological-authority issues). So, Titus 2.5: to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. and I Peter 3.1: Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,. In such a way, they appeal to more culturally-oriented values of the non-Christians around the church. So, just as Paul would suppress personal 'rights' out of desire to further the work of Christ (e.g. I Cor 9.1ff; I Cor 9.22f), so too we should 'subject ourselves' to each other, to move the Kingdom farther.

You must remember that submission and servant hood go hand-in-hand. Christ said that He came "not to be served, but to serve." His submission to the needs of others was CERTAINLY not based on some 'superiority' or 'authority' they had over Him(!), but a submission based on love and other-centered behavior. The NT is replete with such passages that enjoin us to such mutual submission (e.g. Rom 12.10b; I Peter 5.5b; Phil 2.3; Gal 5.13). Seventh, there are a couple of passages in which wives are either charged with authority over themselves, or men are explicitly stated as being in some form of subjection to wives. So, in I Cor 11.10, the Greek says "the woman ought to have authority over her own head." (The English versions add the Jesuit corruption 'a sign of' to this, without the slightest evidence!) and in I Cor 7.4f: The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time,. This is rather clear--the wife has 'authority' over the husband's body--mutually. Eighth, in I Cor 6.3, Paul states that the "saints" will judge the world AND the angels! He makes no distinction between male and female in a FUTURE situation of overt authority. (NB: the word sometimes rendered 'men of little account' in verse. 4 is simply a participle--not a clause with the word 'men' in it. As a participle it has to have linguistic "gender", and is "masculine" in accordance with standard praxis of the day. If an author wanted to draw attention to men, he would not 'hide it' in a humble participial ending, but rather he would use the deliberate words for "men", "husband", etc.) Finally, 'submission within marriage' CANNOT be relevant to matters of church leadership, simply because (1) we KNOW of a husband-wife pair in which the woman was the dominant teacher (Priscilla); and (2) entire congregations were told to 'submit' to women leaders in I Cor 16.16: "submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work (synergounti), and labors (kopionti) at it." We have already seen that Paul refers to numerous women by these titles. In this latter case we have men OBVIOUSLY 'submitting' to women (not necessarily their wives). So whatever "submission" means (and it DOES imply obedience-under-God in certain passages--Rom 13. 5), it is mutual enough to apply in several different directions. It must also be noted that Paul was very familiar with OT history, and accordingly he would have known that many of the main women leaders there were married (e.g. Deborah the Judge, Huldah the prophetess So, I personally have to conclude that although submission is a very, very real command to a wife, it would be false to restrict it to her or to impute the 'traditional' notions of 'obedience' or 'obey your husband, right or wrong' to that word. The very mutuality and grounding of the notion in the person of Christ, indicates that it is concerned with respect, putting other's needs first (cf. I cor 10.24: Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.), and generally 'fitting in' ENOUGH within the cultural context as to not hinder the work of Christ.] Now, on to the controversial passages... Remember, we are examining these passages to see how they relate SPECIFICALLY to church roles--especially LEADERSHIP/TEACHING roles... First up is I Cor 11.3-13: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head -- it is just as though her head were shaved. 6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. 11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? "

Observations: Women were obviously allowed to prophesy in church Women were obviously allowed to pray audibly in church "Prophet" was an official position and was "2nd in rank" in the church, behind apostles and before teachers (I cor 12.28-29) The issue in the passage is some obscure point about head-coverings--NOT about women speaking in the church--and about people being contentious about it (v.16). We have already noted above that v.10 says a women should have (exercise?) authority over her own head. ["Paul means that she should exercise wisely her right to decide whether to cover her head in a way that will honor her husband" Now, even though the passage SUPPORTS women's speaking roles and 'authoritative speaking' roles, some have seen in the reference to 'headship' a basic male-over-female hierarchical subordination structure, as being ordained of God. Let me be quick to point out that EVEN IF THIS WERE SO, it would IN NO WAY negate the obvious fact that women were allowed (indeed, encouraged, when done in proper fashion) to function in worship. That fact remains unchanged in our text. But what about the 'head' thing? Perhaps another digression is warranted, given the controversy surrounding it. Some of the basic points first: "head" does NOT mean the same thing we mean by it in Western culture. From the standpoint of anatomical function, in Paul's day it was the 'heart' that made the decisions, guided life, etc. "Head" was much more the 'adornment department' of the body! In other words, when people wanted to make decisions, they used their heart; when they wanted to get all "gussied up" ["dressed up"], they used their head (e.g. hair, makeup, jewelry). So, in the literature, the word translated 'head' here often shows up as 'crown' or 'excellence'. [Hence, its usefulness in the passage of I Cor 11.] The root notion was that of 'source', and from this usage it was applied to people--Zeus, Pharoah, the progenitors of the Twelve Tribes, Christ-with reference to the Church, man (Adam)--with reference to woman (Eve). If an author wanted to make a point about AUTHORITY, he would use two specific words--exousia ("authority"; Matt 28.18, Rom 13.1-3) and/or archon ("ruler"; Rom 13.3). He only used 'head' when dealing with issues of origination, completion, consummation. In the passage under discussion, the only mention of the word 'authority' is in verse 10--and it is the women who possesses it! NONE of the SCORES of published lexicographers of ancient Greek even LIST "authority, ruler" as a meaning for this word It only begins to show up with those minor usages after Constantine! WHAT A SURPRISE,DECEPTION IN OUR MIDST! Recent attempts to argue that the "source"-meanings PRESUPPOSE the "authority" meaning (a la Grundem) by restricting the locus of study to SPECIFIC persons, literally "exempt" this passage from the force of their arguments! For example, when it is argued that in thousands of cases in Greek literature, when 'head' is applied to a person (as opposed to river or something inanimate), it is only applied to a ruler; then I Cor 11 disappears from consideration--because the term in question is the generic noun 'man'--NOT a specific man! (And, if we agree that the man is Adam--agreeing for sake of argument that he had some authority over Eve--then the passage ONLY extends to the First Couple, and becomes only an illustration for Paul). A second problem is that, strictly speaking, it CANNOT mean 'authority' when applied to God and Christ in the passage--at the time Paul writes this. While that COULD have been a meaning during the Pre-Cross Incarnation, after the Exaltation Paul is clear that Christ has been given all authority, and that He will sometime in the future , 'give it back' to the Father (I Cor 15.24-28): Then the end will come, when he (Christ) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. [Also, it is not clear from the I Cor 11 passage that God the Father is in view--the more inclusive term 'God' may indicate that a source relationship is VERY intentional here. In other words, a 'source' motif--similar to adam-eve--would be more correct if it ran like this: "Godhead was the source of an enfleshed-Godperson".] Needless to say, the relationship between the Father's authority and the Son's authority is exceedingly complex(!), but we MUST proceed on the basis on the force of these passages. Additionally, it should be noted that, linguistically, one simply cannot move from an author's intention (e.g. using a word with a central meaning of 'source of origin, source of completion' AS OPPOSED TO a word with a central meaning of 'authority, ruler'), to some theoretical 'conclusion' that the author was consciously intending BOTH MEANINGS at the same time. This is certainly counter-intuitive (without an indication of a play on meanings--like physical-head and source-head in I Cor 11), and one that would require a large number of passages that made that linkage of concepts EXPLICIT and PART OF THE SEMANTIC substructure of the language. That the majority of cases in which a author used 'source' to describe a person who ALSO had 'authority' is oblique at best and irrelevant at worst, to the issue. What must be shown is that the preponderance of authors used the word 'head' without using the word 'authority, ruler' and DREW DIRECT IMPLICATIONS in the 'authority' sphere--NOT the spheres of honor, respect, similarity, continuity, homage, etc (spheres that would be implications of 'source or origin'). And, when you have a semantic distance as great as between "source" and "authority" you MUST show how the literal meaning 'stretches' to the metaphorical meaning. "Fork in the road" can be derived from a physical fork, as can most other metaphorical extensions. In some cases, we know we can 'lose' the literal in favor of the metaphorical, but in this case BOTH USAGES co-exist in the literary data. It is incumbent, then, for someone to show how 'authority' can be an extension (in such a vast array of situations!) of "source" or "one who completes". It is not enough to cite statistical correlation. And finally, from a methodological standpoint, we could see this from the 'headship' passage in Ephesians. In linguistic studies, when you have a word which you do NOT know the meaning of, you try to decide from the invariable redundancy clues in the passage. If we didn't know what 'head' meant in Ephesians 5, and tried to figure out from the clues, we would decide that it meant something like 'servant'--one who saves, grooms, cleans, dresses, completes, protects, etc. We would NEVER come up with 'authority' from the actions and attributes of Christ in THAT passage! (He obviously has authority over His Bride, but it is not remotely in view in that passage.) But the literal notion of "that which completes" or "a major source of change" (i.e. "head"!) makes quite a lot of sense here. Simple inductive Bible study--without starting with a loaded meaning of 'head'--would yield something much more akin to 'active change agent' than 'ordained authority' Thus, I have to conclude that 'head' does NOT entail authority, but rather is used to focus on organic union (e.g. Christ/Church, Husband/Wife) and source/completion (e.g Christ/New Creation) motifs. The lexical data is simply too overwhelming at this point AGAINST the equation of the two. I can tell from the passage what it does NOT mean! Women were obviously allowed to pray and prophesy in church, and were not commanded to 'be silent' at all. There is absolutely no restriction on women's roles (in worship at least) in this passage Now, let's consider I Cor 14.33-36: "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36 Did the word of God originate with you? On the surface this looks really, really clear--this is a 'sit down and shut up' passage if there ever was one! "Silent in the churches"--what could be clearer than that?But let's look at this at little closer. The first thing we notice is that verse 33b ("as in all the congregations of the saints") probably goes with 33a, and NOT with 34 (so rendered in the NAS). The only other time this kind of argument occurs in Paul is in I Cor 11.16, where it is a CLOSING argument--there too about propriety in worship. Unless Paul changes the subject of this paragraph THREE TIMES(!)--from universal silence, to asking questions at home, and then back to universal silence--then the 'universal silence' clauses are rather severely restricted in scope, to that of simply disruptive questions by early-learners!If the passage DOES order universal silence of women in the church, then the verse simply PROVES TOO MUCH! Notice that there is no restriction on the scope of silence in the passage to 'authoritative teaching' or 'leadership pronouncements'! This verse at face value would argue that women could not teach, sing, exhort, prophesy, pray audibly, greet people, say 'amen' at the giving of thanks, or encourage one another in church.This would mean that ALL of the instructions for worship that Paul has given in chapters 11-14 (including the passage about women praying and prophesying!) would be only to the MALES--since ALL of the instructions were about 'audible' activities (e.g. prophesy, tongues, interpretation). This would be bizarre in the extreme--bordering on the non-sensical. This would mean that I Cor 14.26: "When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation" and I Cor 14.31: "For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged" and Col 3.16: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom" and Eph 5.19: "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" would ONLY be addressed to men(!)--when there is not the slightest reason to do so, and indeed we have TONS of data that documents that women DID these things in churches (even 11.5!).It should also be noted that Paul does NOT have separate 'spiritual gift lists' for men and women! There seems to be no restriction by gender on the Spirit's sovereign distribution (I Cor 12.11) of gifts (chuckle) So, logically--so far--we have two choices: (1) take a universal silence interpretation--and contradict the vast majority of Paul's other teachings--even in the same epistle(!); or (2) take a 'disruptive silence due to inappropriate questioning practices' view (based on 14.35) and simply be a little confused about the historical circumstances...how complicated a choice is that, eh? But the reference to the Law in vs. 34 is "odd" as well. The "Law" never actually says that women are to be 'submissive'--it predicts in Gen 3-4 that they will be bludgeoned into submission by men over the course of history(!), but it certainly doesn't issue ANY imperative or order to women in that verse! Paul knows the Law better than that, and actually quotes it in the epistle twice (9.9; 14.21), but he doesn't argue this ambiguously from the Law ever. What's going on? Is it possible that vss. 34-35 are not Paul's words AT ALL, but maybe a mistaken position of some of the Corinthians, and is here in the text as a quote BY Paul of a false position in the church? Does Paul ever do this? There are four lines of evidence/argument that supports the view that Paul is quoting mistaken opponents here:We do know that I Corinthians has this literary device in it. In I Cor 6, for example, Paul quotes his 'opponents' in verses 12 and 13, immediately followed by a qualification or refutation. (There are no quote marks in Greek, by the way.) He does this in many places in the epistles, actually. In exegesis, one must pay attention to ALL the details in the text--and this text affords an excellent example of why this is important. There is a tiny little particle in the Greek text--not even translated in the NIV and NAS! [ Big Suprise! ]--that provides some interesting evidence in favor of this view. Immediately after verse 35, the first word in verse 36 is a single letter particle that is translated "What?!" in the KJV and ASV. This word in most contexts is translated as 'or' or 'rather', but these are always in series, like "either...or" or "this or that or that".But in this case, it is (1) in the front of the sentence; (2) introduces a completely different subject; and (3) has a complete change of tone--to that of irony and rebuke. Where else does this type of construction occur in Paul? Rom 2.3-4: So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? Notice that in verse 3, Paul has stated a view (pernicious and/or erroneous). He uses the particle "What?!" (perhaps best translated at "NOT!" in the slang of today!) and issues a harsh rebuke of the position's content and tone.Rom 9.20-21: But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?'" 21 (particle is here, but untranslated in the NIV) Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Notice that in verse 20, Paul has stated a view (pernicious and erroneous). He uses the particle "WHAT?!" (remember, "NOT!") and issues a harsh response to the arrogance of the position.I Cor 6.8-9: Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. 9 (particle is here, but untranslated in the NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Notice that in verse 8, Paul has stated an erroneous practice. He uses the particle "WHAT?!" and issues a strong response to the assumptions of the position.What this amounts to is that the tiny particle (in this type of construction and flow) indicates VIOLENT DISAGREEMENT with the preceding verses. (See similar usage in Rom 6.3; 7.1; 11.2; I Cor 6.9, 16, 19; I Cor 10.22; 2 Cor 13.5.) The older commentator Findlay, in the Expositor's Greek Testament, used the phrase "indignant protest" to describe Paul's intent with the particle.Finally, Paul consistently uses irony (e.g. I Cor 4.8) and statement/refutation (e.g. I Cor 6.12-13; 10.23) in this epistle to correct mistaken notions. Notice the semantic clues that this is occurring in the text: Paul uses a gentle, instructional, nurturing tone in 14.26-33, with VERY 'universal speaking' words--"everyone has a hymn, teaching, revelation, tongue, interpretation" (26), "if anyone speaks..." (vs. 27), "for you can ALL prophesy in turn..." (vs. 31).He switches to a legalistic, rabbinical-style, "disgrace"-oriented passage in 14.34-35, with 'universal silence' and 'universal restriction' words.He then switches to a rebuking, ironic tone to demolish SOME false teaching in the immediate context! (vss. 36-38). [Notice that the only "teaching" that COULD BE the target of the rebuke in the near context is in verses 14.34-35. This is an important clue.]He then switches BACK to the gentle, instructional, nurturing tone in verse 14.39-40. This flow of argument ALONE would indicate that Paul was rebuking the position in 34-35.But there is an obvious question here: if the women WERE already speaking in church (11.5)--indicating a 'non-rabbinical' church--WHY would this rabbinical-type argument show up as a view of someone in that church?There is a fairly obvious answer--some of the members of the church, concerned about the "chaos" of the worship service, probably were seeking to 'return to the good old Intertestamental days'. In other words, THEIR answer to the problem of church order was to cut the church in half! But Paul, on the other hand, explains that in every church (vs. 33) God ordains order WITHOUT restricting who does the speaking. This is affirmed both BEFORE the passage in question (vs. 31-33) and AFTER the passage in question (vs. 39-40). [That there would have been "rabbinic-leaning" contingents there that could have advanced this position is suggested from clues such as the "party of Cephas" (1.12), the dual reference to Jews/Gentiles in 1.23ff, and the Pauline Accommodation passage in 9.19-23. We KNOW there was a large Jewish population in the city--see historical background below.] Finally, the actual nature of the rebuke in vs. 36-38 indicates that the position is that of some Corinthians, and not that of Paul.This can be seen from the textual flow in the passage: Vss 26-32: Paul's solutions for orderly worship, with 'universal speaking' allowed. Vs 33: Concluding argument: God seeks order, and seeks it THIS way in ALL the churches (accepting the NAS rendering of the final clause). Vss 34-35: Someone ELSE's "solution" for orderly worship, with 'shut the women up' enjoined. Vss 36-38: Paul's argument: Why do you think you are SO MUCH MORE 'spiritual' than the other churches, to the extent that you can set up a DIFFERENT solution to the problem of orderly worship. This contrast between 'what the OTHER churches do' and 'what the Corintian church wants to do' is made in the context of orderly worship and universal speaking. In other words, the rebuke makes the most sense IF the text in 34-35 is THEIRS 'alone'--in distinction from the other churches' position.So, where does this net out?My personal conviction is that Paul is quoting/refuting a mistaken position. The language, tone, style, textual context, historical context, and known facts about Corinth and Paul's practice indicates this to me.But even if I am mistaken, the most likely OTHER alternative is that of "we do not have a clue what he meant"...It CANNOT mean 'universal silence in the churches'--for that contradicts MOST of the rest of the passage and the rest of the epistle (not to mention, known Pauline and early church practice). To turn it into a restriction on women from making any audible, articulate sounds in church is so against EVERY SCRAP of data we have--with the "exception" of I Tim 2, which we look at next(!). Exegetically, I just cannot see a strong and textually-consistent case for 'universal silence' from this passage.

Interestingly enough, if it is a Pauline REFUTATION of 'universal silence' then it ALSO will function as strong data we can use in our analysis of I Tim 2(!)...In other words, our understanding of I Tim 2 will need to take into consideration that Paul probably DISAGREES with the position of women's silence--even from teaching and prophesying (e.g 14.26 and 11.5)--in the church!