Chapter 5
Paul and Women
A cartoon appeared in a Christian magazine portraying Paul arriving by boat only to be met by a group of women carrying posters that read "Unfair to Women," "Paul Is a Male Chauvinist Pig." The caption underneath reports the sheepish apostle saying, "Hey, heh, I see you got my letter."1
When it comes to women's issues, the biblical storm inevitably centers upon Paul's letters. Maligned by feminists and lionized by traditionalists, paul himself gets lost behind a barrage of claims and counterclaims. Unfortunately, most attention is focused upon those passages where he seems to severely restrict the role of women in church (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-15), and where he appears to bind women under the traditional patriarchal domination of men (1 Cor. 11:2-9; Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18). These "parts" are taken to be the "whole" of his teaching relative to women.
However, even a cursory glance at what he had to say about women and how he treated them leads us to the conclusion that, aside from Jesus, women have never had a more ardent advocate for full equality in home and church than he. Though raised and educated in a Jewish society that treated women as subhuman, he makes a radical departure from the narrow limits of his rabbinic training as
Page 99
"a Pharisee" (Phil. 3:5). In The Apostle Paul and Women in the Church,2 Don Williams has engaged in a thorough study of every passage in Paul's letters where he speaks of women. It is astonishing to see how often Paul did refer to women and in what high esteem he held them. Such a study shatters stereotypes about Paul. Following Williams' lead, we will briefly survey some of what Paul has to say.
ROMANS
In his mighty letter to the Romans, his theological magnum opus, Paul sets forward his gospel of salvation by grace through faith: "The one who is righteous will live by faith" (1:17). While his main concern is to show that we are not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, it is also his intention to show that the gospel of Jesus is universal in scope and transcends all racial, social, and gender barriers. It offers "salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (v. 16, NASB). The gospel is the great leveler, particularly when it comes to artificial gender distinctions imposed by a patriarchal hierarchy, as we can see in the following examples.
In his analysis of man's descent into the abyss of sin, Paul speaks of both lesbians and homosexuals as equally under the wrath of God (1:26-27). This was a departure from rabbinical teaching, which placed greater weight upon the sin of the woman than upon the sin of the man.
Both Abraham and Sarah were equally impotent. Yet both equally believed the promise of God and equally shared in the subsequent joy over the birth of their son, Isaac (4:19-21). Along with the author of Hebrews, Paul celebrates Sarah as a model of great faith (Heb. 11:8-12).
When casting about for an appropriate way to illustrate freedom from the Law, Paul lifted up a wife — not a husband — as the paradigm of our new life in Christ and the freedom we are to enjoy in Him (7:1-3). If Paul had
Page 100
been true to his Pharisaic heritage, he would certainly have used a man, rather than a woman, as his model.
Paul deals with the complex issue of God's election of His people, Israel, in 9:1-26, and how the Church fits into this overall scheme. Not only did God choose a most unlikely people unto himself, but He chose most unlikely individuals within that people. More than that, Paul does something that was certain to scandalize the good Jewish males of his day: he draws attention to two women, Sarah and Rebekah, as special examples of the grace of God's surprising election. God was not at all averse to calling and utilizing women as vehicles for His revelation and as instruments in accomplishing His gracious purposes.
Most revealing is Paul's long list of greetings and commendations in the last chapter. First mentioned is not a man but a woman, Phoebe, to whom he entrusted the delivery of this letter to the Romans. In that most lists of names, then as now, began with those who were most prominent — such as "Peter, James, and John" heading the list of disciples, we can assume that Phoebe was held in the highest esteem both by Paul and by those to whom he wrote. He gives her an official recommendation as well as an endorsement of her ministry (cf. 2 Cor. 3:1-2), by addressing her as "our sister . . . a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea" (Romans 16:1, NASB). Technically, "servant" is an accurate translation of the Greek word diakonos. Since Jesus deliberately rejected all leadership titles that implied positions of power and prestige and chose rather to define His role as diakonos, the apostles likewise always spoke of themselves, and of each other, as diakonos, "servants of the word" (Luke 1:2). Most English versions, however, translate diakonos as "minister" whenever it refers to apostles, pastors, and teachers — what we would call ordained clergy — in order to distinguish diakonos from its
Page 101
secular meaning, "to wait on tables" (Acts 6:2), and from "deacon," lay leaders in the church (1 Timothy 3:8-13).
When referring to Phoebe, however, most translators reveal their traditionalist bias by rendering diakonos as "servant" or "deaconess" because they cannot imagine a woman as a "minister." Such should not be the case. Diakonos appears in both masculine and feminine cases in the Greek, depending upon the gender of the one it modifies. In this instance, however, the rule is broken. Diakonos is masculine, even though it refers to a woman. It seems clear that Paul wants to communicate that Phoebe is more than someone who waits on tables. Neither is she a "deaconess," but just as much a full and respected minister of the Word as, for instance, Timothy or Titus, or even Paul himself.
Paul uses a second key word in describing Phoebe: "that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well" (16:2, emphasis added). Prostatis can be translated as "helper" or "benefactor." While these words suggest an "assistant" in English, it is not the case the Greek. Prostatis literally means "one who stands in front or before." It is otherwise translated "to set over, to appoint with authority, to lead, protect, govern, preside, superintend, direct, rule, stand before others, set over others."3 Phoebe was a benefactor because she was in a position of leadership where she could render an authoritative and effective ministry of the Word. In short, Paul commends Phoebe to the Romans because she was a minister — preacher, teacher, pastor — who was in charge (the pastor) "of the church which is at Cenchrea." The very fact that he encourages believers in Rome to "welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints" indicates that there may have been some reluctance to submit to her ministry because she was a woman.
Page 102
Paul greets "Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (16:3, NASB). He does not greet Aquila as "my fellow worker and his good wife, Prisca." Rather, he greets them as a husband-and-wife team. Word order is a significant factor in Greek grammar, with the emphasis falling on the words appearing first in a series or clause. Since, in this case, Paul mentions Prisca (Priscilla) first, this may indicate that she was the stronger leader of the two. Both equally shared in ministerial leadership of "the church that is in their house" (v.5, NASB).
Paul greets "Mary, who has worked very hard among you" (16:6). The verb "work" or "labor," which he uses of Mary is the same used elsewhere to speak of ministerial labor in the gospel. The prepositional phrase, "worked very hard for you," can also be rendered "worked hard over you" (see Gal. 4:11; 1 Thess. 5:12, NASB). Mary may well have had oversight of some important ministry in the church at Rome.
Paul greets "Andronicus and Junia [not "Junias," as the NASB and others render it], my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was" (16:7). In the earliest Greek manuscripts, Junia is rendered in the feminine case. Consequently, this may well have been another husband-and-wife team. What is of special interest is to note that both Andronicus and Junia were "in Christ" before Paul and "are prominent among the apostles." This is solid evidence that women were included in the wider apostolic circle by virtue of having seen the Lord, and Junia was prominent among them. There is support for this in the writings of the influential fourth-century Church father, Chrysostom, who commented on this verse by saying, "And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing . . . Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman [Junia], that she
Page 103
should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!"
"Greet Tryphaena and Tryphos, workers in the Lord. Greet Persis the beloved, who has worked hard in the Lord" (16:12, NASB). As with Mary in verse 6, all three of these women were engaged in ministerial activity. Paul is not afraid to express deep-felt emotions of appreciation to women when he speaks of Persis as "beloved." The next verse also indicates his warm relations with women when he says, "Greet Rufus, a choice man in the Lord, also his mother and mine" (v. 13, NASB). Since Paul does not identify Rufus as his physical brother, he is probably indicating that Rufus' mother was like a mother to him. Paul greets two more women in verse 15, bringing the total to 9 women singled out for special mention in this list of 27 names. Historians know of no comparable list of greetings in antiquity that gives such a prominent place to women.
To summarize Paul's attitude toward women in Romans, we can draw these conclusions. First, men and women alike are under the sway of sin and the wrath of God, and both are equal recipients of the grace of salvation. Second, women as well as men have been chosen by God to play key roles in the unfolding of salvation history. Third, women shared equally, with men, in the work of Christian ministry. They exercised leadership roles in the earliest Church and may have even been numbered among the original apostolic circle. So there is, in his massive letter to the Romans, no suggestion whatsoever of women relegated to a secondary role of subordination or denied an active place of ministerial work and leadership in the church. In his view of women, Paul distanced himself radically from the traditional bias of his Jewish upbringing and rabbinical training.
Page 104
1 CORINTHIANS
That the church at Corinth was a problem-plagued congregation should not blind us to the fact that it was also an innovative, dynamic, and exuberant community of new Christians. Never had the ancient world seen anything quite like it: a miscellaneous and unlikely collection of people bound together by a common confession of faith in Christ, and who were happily breaking cultural molds and shattering social strictures right and left. The walls that had separated Jew from Gentile for thousands of years were being torn down (1:22-25). The great social divide between rich and poor, mighty and humble, male and female was being bridged (vv. 26-29). Women, for so long locked out of participation in worship — except in the most extreme pagan cults — were welcomed alongside men and encouraged in the expression of their spiritual gifts (v.7; 11:5; 12:4ff). No wonder that the apostle Paul, their spiritual father, greeted them with such warm affection and commendation (1:1-9) and took such pains to gently help them work through the issues that troubled them. A window is opened, in this detailed and multifaceted letter, for us to see how he applied his doctrine of full equality in Christ to women.
It is striking to note that a woman, rather than a man, was sent by the church at Corinth as the head of a delegation to inform Paul of what was going on: "For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people" (1:11 NASB). This is particularly noteworthy in that Paul also mentions that certain men had likewise come from Corinth, including Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17-18). This suggests that Chloe may have been held in higher esteem within the congregation than the men and was thereby entrusted with its deepest concerns.
Page 105
In dealing with an infamous case of incest that involved a member of the Corinthian church (5:1-8), what is of interest is to note that Paul ignores the "father's wife" but comes down hard on the male offender. In so doing he was setting himself against rabbinical practice, which tended to absolve men while condemning women (cf. John 8:1-11). The redemptive purpose of church discipline is "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Cor. 5:5). That the offender repented is evident in that Paul later encourages the church to restore him to fellowship (2 Cor. 2:5-11).
In 6:15-16, Paul says that a believer who unites with a cult prostitute is "one body with her," thus denying Christ. This argument could be stated in the positive form as follows: the union of a man with his wife at once honors Christ and fulfills the purpose of human sexuality, which is the concrete physical expression of unity and equality between husband and wife.
In the middle of his letter, Paul writes one of the most astonishing tracts on marital relations to be found in antiquity (7:1-40). What is so revolutionary about it is that he treats husbands and wives as equals. This is evident in a symmetry of grammar and content that Paul consistently carries through in this chapter: "Let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband" (v.2, NASB). This equality is evident in the next verses where he teaches that a wife has the same conjugal rights as her husband and that a man must not be insensitive to her needs — not even for such praiseworthy spiritual endeavors as prayer and fasting, unless she agrees, and then only for a short time (v.5). His first word is directed to the man: "Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise
Page 106
also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (v.4, NASB).
There is nothing remotely comparable to this in either the Old Testament or the voluminous tomes of rabbinic literature. In Jewish society a woman had no rights over her own body. She was entirely at the mercy of her husband's whims and desires, or lack thereof. Don Williams underscores the radicality of Paul's teaching and how it demolishes the very presupposition of male dominance and female subordination upon which the edifice of patriarchalism is built:
This surprising expression of sexual equality and surrender again presupposes and defends the absolute quality of the sexes at their most intimate encounter. Each is to surrender his or her body to the other partner. Each is lord over the other's body. Paul presupposes that mutual love and self-giving will be expressed in our sexuality. No ego-trip, no will to power, no seduction or rape is tolerated. Here is mutual surrender. Here is the meeting of each other's sexual needs and desires. Here is the physical expression of the one flesh (see 6:16). Here is the gospel in action — self-less love, giving to receive. The last thing in Paul's mind is male-dominance or egotism . . . . As Christ gave Himself for us, so we give ourselves for each other.5
Paul also affirms that a wife can be the spiritual leader of the home: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife . . . for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy" (7:14, NASB). Likewise, if a situation becomes intolerable, he gives permission for a wife to divorce her abusive, unbelieving husband without guilt, for "the sister is not under bondage in such cases" (v.15, NASB). In both instances, Paul grants to the wife
Page 107
"equal rights," which she had previously been denied in both Jewish and Gentile society.
Paul reveals not only that the apostles were married but also that their spouses accompanied them on their missionary travels (9:3-5). Because it was uncommon for wives to travel with their husbands, Paul's reference here demonstrates the radical cultural shifts that were going on within the earliest Church and also underscores the value of companionship and mutual assistance afforded the apostles by their spouses.
When we come to chapter 11, we are faced with a problem. It appears that Paul reverses himself and reverts back to affirming a patriarchal hierarchy, a "chain of command," in which the woman is subordinate to the man. This passage is appealed to so frequently in submissionism literature that we need to get it before us.
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head — it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (11:3-10).
The problems to which Paul now addresses himself are those of proper decorum and conduct in public services.
Page 108
The break between chapters 10 and 11 should begin earlier where Paul lays down a basic principle that guides him now as he addresses himself to issues having to do with public worship by saying, "Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" (10:32, NASB). The issue before him is not male-female relationships but appropriate behavior when they gather together as a body for worship.
Chapter 11 begins on a positive note: "Now I praise you because you ... hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you" (v2, NASB). What traditions? He mentions at least two in this letter: the first has to do with the proper celebration of the Lord's Supper (vv.23-30), and the second deals with the central core of the gospel — Christ's death and resurrection — which he "delivered" to them (15:1-8). In other words, he has no problem with the content of their theology but only with the form of their worship. It is in this light that he addresses himself to two issues that directly touch upon women: prophesying and praying with uncovered heads (11:2-16) and being disruptive in public services (14:34-35). Because the second embodies a specific command for women to keep silent in the church, we will defer that to our next chapter where we analyze, in some detail, the two Pauline texts invariably cited by those who forbid women to preach or exercise any sort of leadership in the church.
The problem addressed here is that women — so long denied any participation whatsoever in religious worship — were taking their newfound freedom in Christ too far for their culture. Because women were warmly welcomed into the church and encouraged to participate fully in the services (v.5), they saw no reason to be shackled by
Page 109
the oppressive conventions of a non-Christian culture. Therefore, when they came to church they took off their hats and removed their veils, both despised symbols of their inferior status. For them, it was like casting off chains. They could now worship the living God with no covering over them except the grace of God. Likewise, with "unveiled face [they could behold] as in a mirror the glory of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18, NASB, emphasis added). What liberation! What innovation! Not since the days when Miriam the prophetess, Moses' sister, took the timbrel in hand and led the Israelite women in singing and dancing following the Exodus event had women enjoyed such freedom in worship (Exodus 15:19-21).
Unfortunately, by flaunting their freedom from standards of social decorum and dress of the day, Christian women had become an embarrassment in the church and a scandal outside. Immediately preceding this passage, Paul argues that "'all things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up" (10:23). He follows that up by enunciating, once again, the basic law of love, which ought to guide all social relations, especially those in the church: "Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other" (v.24).
From that base, he makes his appeal to women by saying, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ" (11:3). As we shall see when we analyze Ephesians 5:23, headship does not imply a wooden hierarchy in the Body of Christ but implies a dynamic principle of love based upon the voluntary subordination of one's rights on behalf of congregational order. If Paul meant to convey a hierarchical order moving from superior to inferior in 11:3, then he would have listed God as the "head of Christ" first instead of last.
Page 110
What is striking about this passage, however, is that women are "praying and prophesying" (NASB) in the church at Corinth right alongside men (11:4-5). There were women preachers in the church at Corinth. Prophecy, in the Scriptures, has more to do with forthtelling than foretelling. A prophet was one who possessed a "gifted faculty for setting forth divinely revealed truth."6 The church at Corinth enjoyed all the benefits of being led in prayer not only by women. They had the advantage of hearing God's Word declared from not only a masculine but a feminine perspective as well. This rare and wonderful privilege has, unfortunately, been denied to most Christians, due to a tragic misunderstanding of Paul's intent in his special instructions directed to a specific problem situation (see the next chapter). Paul obviously has no interest in silencing women in Corinth but only in making sure that those who pray or prophesy will do so in a manner that will not detract from the public ministry of the Word.
His argument runs along two lines. First, he appeals to social convention: "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering" (11:14-15, NASB). By uncovering their heads women ran the risk of being mistaken for the cult prostitutes of Corinth who went about in public not only with heads uncovered but with hair cut close or even shaved (v.6). Second, he makes a theological argument. When he says that man "is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man" (v.7, NASB), he is not rewriting Genesis 1:26-27 where the woman shares equally with the man in bearing and exhibiting God's image. John Bristow argues that Paul is referring, rather, to the way Jews worshiped.7 He points out that the Jews wore head coverings during worship, called the tallith, in order to shield themselves from God's Shechinah glory. Since
Page 111
"the glory of God [is now revealed] in the face of Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6, NASB), there is no longer any need for a man to worship with his head covered. "To cover one's head, Paul seems to be saying, is to act as if one were ashamed of Christ, our head, who is the image and glory of God."8 For the woman, however, a head covering functioned in that culture as a wedding ring in ours: it reflected the "glory" of her husband. To cast it off would be to shame him.
If, then, head covering was associated with the idea of "glory" by the culture of the day, then retention of head covering by the women would convey the blessing of, and connection to, Christ's glory upon the woman. The symbol of the authority conferred upon her in Christ is demonstrated by the head covering. "Therefore," says Paul, "the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels" ((11:10, NASB). What "authority"? Some commentators hold that a woman has authority over her own head as to her hair and head coverings. Others think it refers to the "head," her husband (v.3), in which case the wife would have authority over her husband. Most likely, Paul is saying that a woman ought to respect social convention and wear an acceptable head covering, especially when praying or prophesying in public services.
New Testament specialists are at a loss as to what Paul is referring to when he says, "because of the angels." The second-century Church father, Tertullian, thought that if angels looked down and saw women with heads and faces uncovered, they might fall in love with them. Bristow points out, however, that this may refer to the role that angels played, in the Gospels, in affirming women. Angels were active in announcing Christ's birth to Mary and in proclaiming Christ's resurrection to the women at the tomb. Bristow further notes, "The fact that angels came to women affirms the spiritual authority women my enjoy
Page 112
from God and that they may exercise within the church of Christ."9
There is another explanation for Paul's argument throughout this section (11:3-10). Virginia Mollenkott suggests that the apostle is making his appeal for women to dress according to custom by citing the patriarchal "order of creation."10 Since social customs are not buttressed by timeless truth but vary from culture to culture, he reverts back to his earlier rabbinic training and avers that covered heads and veiled faces are an appropriate way for women to honor an otherwise harmless social convention.
It is of vital importance, however, to note that Paul challenges and destroys the traditionalist "order of creation" rationale in the next two verses: "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God" (11:11-12, emphasis added). True, the first woman originated from the man. Lest prideful man be tempted to lord it over the woman — as indeed has been the case — God ordained that after the first Adam, every man would originate from a woman. So much for male superiority because of being first in creation!
Once again, it is important to keep the overall picture in mind. Paul's objective here is not to analyze male-female relationships but to encourage sensitivity on the part of women to the sensibilities of others regarding appropriate dress and behavior in public worship, particularly when praying and prophesying before the whole congregation.
Paul deals extensively with the exercise of spiritual gifts in the church (chap.12). While he does not specifically mention women, he does use such qualifiers as "each one" and "all persons" without distinction between men and women. Likewise, he affirms that all the Corinthians were "baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free
Page 113
["male and female" — Gal. 3:28] — and we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (v.13). We can assume, therefore, that he encourages women, as well as men, to exercise their God-given spiritual gifts "for the common good" (v.7). Perhaps Paul had women especially in mind, given the cultural bias against them, when he observes,
The members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another (vv.22-25).
Paul would have been appalled at the discrimination that has dominated the church since then, splitting the Body of Christ asunder along gender lines, artificially limiting women's range of expression when it comes to their God-given, Spirit-incited gifts. To withhold certain offices and functions from women institutionalizes divisiveness in the Body based on no higher principle than that of physical gender!
GALATIANS
Paul's explosive letter to the Galatians, believed to be his first, sets out his gospel of reconciliation and emancipation in Christ: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). This enunciates his lofty vision of a once-divided world at last united in Christ. Paul sets the stage for this great proclamation when, in 3:10-14, he says that to be an adopted child of God means to be released from the "curse of the law" (v.13). Through a woman came the curse that bound all of her
Page 114
children — particularly her daughters — under the bondage of discriminatory laws. Likewise, through a woman came Christ who "redeemed us from the curse of the law" (v.13). He continues this nontraditional truth in the next chapter when he affirms, "But when the fulness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children" (4:4-5).
Under the Law only men could receive their father's inheritance. Now in Christ women, as well as men, become full partakers of the inheritance that belongs to all of Abraham's spiritual children (3:15-29; 4:7). Under the old dispensation, sons were more highly valued than daughters. In the new, all are children of God, and all share equally as members of His family (3:23-26). Formerly, only Jewish males were considered to be true Israelites and bore in their flesh the identifying mark of circumcision. But now, all believers — Jew and Gentile, bond and free, male and female — share one baptism into one body in Christ (vv. 6-14, 27-29): "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcism means anything, but faith working through love" (5:6, NASB). The clothes that signified Adam and Eve's alienation from each other have now been replaced by garments of reconciliation, for we are all "clothed . . . with Christ" (3:27).
To illustrate the freedom we have in Christ, Paul contrasts two covenants: Hagar who represents those "born according to the flesh," and Sarah who represents those born "through the promise" (4:23). What is astonishing about Paul's allegory is that he uses two women, Hagar and Sarah, instead of their two sons, Ishmael and isaac, as contrasting models. In doing so, he was, once again, breaking with rabbinic tradition. In deliberately accenting Hagar and Sarah, Paul was showing that women were more than
Page 115
bit players in the drama of salvation history: they were prime actors. God is no respecter of persons or gender.
Not surprisingly, given the long and unquestioned acceptance of patriarchy and social hierarchies, many voices have been raised to blunt the full force of Paul's radical proclamation. In an effort to remove the apparent contradiction between Galatians 3:28 and other passages where Paul specifically prohibits women from speaking or teaching in church, traditionalists hold to a "spiritual interpretation"; that is, Paul is referring to our standing "in Christ" and not our standing in church or society. They maintain that Galatians 3:28 constitutes a soteriological statement that has nothing to do with social issues, nor does it change positions and roles assigned in creation. Others affirm that the equality envisioned here by Paul awaits the eschaton; that is, it describes the "age that is to come." others, such as the Evangelicals who framed the "Danvers Statement," maintain that while Paul does enunciate a position of equality in principle, he held to patriarchal hierarchy in practice.
These interpretations that spiritualize away the force of Paul's egalitarian declaration have likewise been used by Christians in defense of slavery as a divinely ordained social institution. They, too, admitted that Paul destroys slavery in principle in Galatians 3:28 as well as in his letter to Philemon (vv.10-17), yet they maintained that he encouraged Christians to accommodate themselves to it in practice (Col. 3:2-4:1).
Klyne Snodgrass asserts, however, that "Galatians 3:26-29 functions as the climax of the epistle." He states: "Paul's point is that faith in Christ has brought a new status (children of God) and a new existence (incorporation into Christ) . . . . The parallel structure found in 3:26 and 3:28 emphasizes that all have the same status as children of God and that all enjoy the unity that is in Christ."11 He concludes his exhaustive study of this text by stating that
Page 116
"Galatians 3:28 prohibits the valuations and divisions of the old order and insists on equal standing and unity in Christ."12 Don Williams agrees:
Male dominance, egotism, patriarchal power and preferential priority is at an end. No longer can Genesis 2-3 be employed to reduce woman to an inferior position or state. If redemption is real the warfare between the sexes is over. As the same time, female seduction, manipulation, and domineering is also over, "for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Furthermore, the life-style of the church must be consistent with the gospel of the church. Proclamation must result in demonstration . . . We conclude that the old barriers are broken as Christ makes all things new.13
Galatians 3:28 became the Magna Charta text for Evangelicals advocating the abolition of slavery, as well as the enfranchisement of women. Gilbert Haven, early 19th-century Methodist bishop, called this verse Paul's "greatest doctrine of Woman's Rights."14 Antoinette Brown, in 1850, became the first woman preacher to be ordained in American history, and one of the first since the earliest centuries of the Church. Luther Lee, who preached at her ordination service, used Galatians 3:28 as his text. He declared:
In the Church of which Christ is only head, males and females possess equal rights and privileges. . . . To make any distinction in the church of Jesus Christ, between males and females, purely on the ground of sex is virtually to strike this text from the sacred volume, for it affirms that in Christ there is no difference between males and females, that they are all one in regard to the gospel of the grace of God.15
One year after the first women's rights convention in 1848, Elizabeth Wilson wrote A Scriptural View of Woman's Rights and Duties, in which she made these comments upon this text: "There are no exclusively privileged classes
Page 117
among Christ's disciples — no monopolists — not only is there no distinction of eternal salvation between male and female . . . but they have the same rights and privileges."16 Susie Stanley, evangelical scholar and biblical feminist, concludes: "I have found this text to be a rallying cry in the movement for women's rights and the recovery of the New Testament practice of women in ministry . . . . this text has been a biblical verification of the calling to ministry that women have experienced through the Holy Spirit. We in evangelical churches should affirm the equality in ministry advocated in Galatians 3:28."17
EPHESIANS
Paul's letter to the Ephesians is centered around the conviction that all things are moving to their final consummation in Christ (1:9-10). Sin deadens; Christ makes alive (2:1-7). Sin excludes; Christ includes (vv. 11-13). Sin erects dividing walls; Christ tears them down (vv.14-15). Sin alienates; Christ reconciles (vv.16-18). Sin estranges; Christ embraces (2:19-3:12).
It is in this context that Paul offers one of the most exalted and liberating expositions ever committed to writing concerning how husbands and wives ought to relate together (5:21-33). What is so distressing, however, is to see the way in which the beauty of Paul's magnificent vision and the radicality of his revelation about "kingdom relationships" has all but been lost because of the extraordinary attention focused upon only one side of the relationship: "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (5;22, NASB; cf. Col. 3:18). The breadth and range of his insight into the possibilities for Christian marriage, patterned after Christ's love for His bride, the Church, has been skewered upon the alters of biased and truncated hierarchical interpretations that totally distort what Paul is trying to communicate. Actually, if commanding women to
Page 118
be in subjection to their husbands was all he had to say, he might as well have saved his breath. There was nothing new or particularly spiritual in that.
Likewise, there is no shortage of voices today calling for a return to "traditional family values" where women are bound under an ironclad subordination to their husbands. They are advocating women to abandon their freedom in Christ to become "subject again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal. 5:1, NASB). Helen Andelin's Fascinating Womanhood and Marabel Morgan's enormously popular The Total Woman were but the leading edge of a tidal wave of "submissionism" literature that has poured forth from the bosom of evangelical Christianity in recent decades. Both authors unquestioningly accept the patriarchal order of dominant male and docile female as representing a divinely ordained hierarchy, and they support their case by appealing to one narrow part of Paul's teaching while ignoring the rest. They teach not only that the husband is superior by divine decree, but that it is the wife's God-given responsibility to massage his feelings of masculinity, aggressiveness, and dominance. Thus Andelin exhorts the ideal woman "to become the fragile dependent creature that nature intended you to be."18
Marabel Morgan goes a giant step further by encouraging a wife to adore her husband: "It is only when a woman surrenders her life to her husband, reveres and worships him, and is willing to serve him, that she becomes really beautiful to him."19 Such language smacks of idolatry. The sad lesson of history is that when a woman worships a man as a god, he does not become more divine but more beastly, even demonic. And the woman does not become more beautiful but less human, in her own eyes as well as in his.
If we are to be "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15, KJV), we must set Paul's special teaching about
Page 119
marital relationships within the larger context of unity in Christ. It is impossible to imagine that in a letter celebrating the breading down of dividing walls and the bridging of chasms in Christ, Paul would suddenly reverse himself and interject a dominance-subordination division into the very heart of the most basic and important of all human relationships, that between husband and wife. It is hard to believe that the apostle who celebrated "everything has become new" in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17) would revert back to defending a pattern of ruler-ruled relationships that had plagued humankind since the Fall.
To restore perspective to Paul's profound and radically innovative teaching concerning husband-wife relationship, we must draw the larger picture. After proclaiming the great theological truth of unity in Christ (Ephesians 1-3), Paul begins to show how it works out in practical life (4-6). He begins this section by saying: "I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called" (4:1). What are the controlling principles in such a "worthy walk"? "Humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (vv.2-3). It is hard to imagine how these qualities of spirit would work in a patriarchal model, particularly on the part of the one ordained to rule.
Paul repeats this principle of self-giving love when he says, "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us" (5:1-2a). And how does Christ express His love for us? He "gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (v.2b). After showing how self-giving love applies to a number of ethical and moral issues, Paul concludes this section by encouraging us to "be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (v.21). If we love with Christ's kind of love,
Page 120
then it follows that we will, like Him, offer up ourselves to one another in love (cf. 4:32).
Having enunciated the principle of self-giving love and applied it to specific situations, Paul is now ready to show how it ought to work between husbands and wives. He begins by repeating only what many had said before him: "Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord" (5:22). The picture that this verse conjures in our minds is that of a king sitting upon his throne with his subjects groveling before him in abject and unquestioning obedience.
There is, however, a startling omission in the Greek text that is not apparent in English: "be subject to" does not even appear in verse 22! The text literally reads, "Wives to their husbands as to the Lord." Wives are to do what to their husbands? To make grammatical sense, translators have pulled down the verb "be subject to" from the preceding verse: "be subject to one another in the fear of Christ" (v. 21, NASB). What is requested of wives is exactly that required of all believers in the Body of Christ: participation in voluntary mutual submission (vv. 18-20). The kind of subjection called for here has nothing to do with a humble spirit of self-giving love. John Bristow is right on target when he points out that "it would be as impossible for a group of people to be obedient to each other as it would be for a group to follow each other."20
There is a Greek word that can be translated "be subject to" that means "be obedient unto": it is hupakouo, often used to describe master-slave and parent-child relationships. It is the word Paul uses when he writes in the next chapter, "Children, obey [hupakouo] your parents in the Lord" (6:1). This is the word that both Greek philosophers and rabbis used to describe husband-wife relationships.
Not so Paul. When referring to the quality of relationships that ought to prevail within the body of believers
Page 121
and in Christian marriages, he used another word, hupotasso. In its active form it does describe the relationship between a conqueror and the vanquished as when the disciples, returning from their preaching mission, reported that "even the demons are subject to us" (Luke 10:17, NASB, emphasis added). But Paul never uses this word in its active form to describe human relationships. He does not order believers — much less husbands — to "dominate" or "vanquish" one another. Instead he uses the imperative middle voice form, hupotassomai, which suggests a voluntary submission. As we have already noted, "be subject to" in verse 21 cannot mean that believers are to obey one another but rather ought to cooperate with one another.
From our study of both the Greek word and the context in which it is used, we need to translate "be subject to" as "be sensitive to," "be supportive of," "be loyal to," "be responsive to," or as the German translation renders hupotassomai, "place yourself at the disposition of one another."21 Subjection has nothing to do with a position of inferiority or powerlessness but has everything to do with spiritual powerfulness; that is, it demonstrates personal self-esteem and strength of character in deliberately choosing to humble oneself on behalf of the beloved, or to "one another" in the Body of Christ.
The next verses seem to support female submissionism: "For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands" (5:23-24). When we read "head" in our English translations, we immediately assume that this implies leadership, decision making, and authority, as in "head of state." The analogy seems clear; even as the head (husband) directs the body, so the body (wife) obediently submits to the head.
Page 122
Before we leap to this conclusion, however, we need to recognize, as Virginia Mollenkott points out, that the connection between the physical head and the body through the nervous system was not known in biblical times. To the contrary, "decision-making was located in the heart, which is why we are told that our belief in Jesus is to take place in our hearts, and that thoughts issue from the heart (Romans 10:9; Matthew 15:19; Hebrews 4:12; and so forth)."22
We see this most clearly when we note the Greek word Paul selected for "head." If Paul wanted to convey a master-slave or king-subject relationship, he would have used the Greek word arche, which is translated "beginning," or "first things" as in archaeology, archetype, architect. It also means "of first importance," as in archangel, archbishop, archenemy. This word appears numerous times in the New Testament, including Paul's letters, to designate leadership and authority, such as "magistrate," "chief," "prince," "ruler," "principalities," authorities," and "head." So if Paul intended to describe the relationship between God and Christ, Christ and man, man and woman in a pattern of hierarchical authority, a "chain of command," he would have used the word arche, as Aristotle did when describing the relationship between husband and wife. There are 46 Greek words that Paul could have chosen to speak of Kingdom relationships that would have conveyed the idea of rank and position, but he did not.
Instead, Paul deliberately selected another Greek word, kephale, which even though it is sometimes used to describe the head as a part of one's body, it was never used to mean chief, or boss, or ruler, or authority.23 Kephale most often means "source" or "origination of life" as in 1 Cor. 11:8, "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man" (NASB). This is in reference to Genesis 2 where man is formed first and then the woman. Man, however, has his source in Christ, and Christ has His source in God (Col. 1:15-18).
Page 123
Paul defines what he means by "head" in Col. 1:18 when he says, "He is the head [kephale] of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything."
Christ's headship over the Church does not derive from the "divine right of kings" or some sort of preordained hierarchy but by virtue of being at once the Church's Source (beginning, first cause) and Reconciler (Savior, Redeemer). Headship, therefore, does not suggest an externally imposed authority or rulership but rather suggests resource, enabler, and advocate. Headship is servant-leadership that springs from self-giving love (Col. 1:19-21). This is further seen when Paul urges Christians to hold fast "to the head [kephale], from whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God" (2:19). Christ's Lordship is not organizational as God's chief executive officer but organic and dynamic as a vine that gives life to the branches (John 15:1-13). The life Christ gives to "the whole body" derives from His willingness to "lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13, NASB).
Precisely how does Christ exercise His headship over the Church, and thus the husband exercise his headship over his wife? Paul's answer is, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (5:25, emphasis added). The authority that Christ exercises over his Church as its head is not like that of the Gentiles. To the contrary, it is the authority of servant-leadership exercised in the power of self-giving love. "For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). In other words, Christ turns the world's (Gentile's) understanding of arche headship right on its head. He speaks not of arche-ship (rulership) but of kephale-ship (servanthood) and in doing so destroys the
Page 124
fundamental assumptions of patriarchalism as well as all externally imposed social hierarchies within the Body of Christ.
The phrase "chain of command," frequently used to describe a gender-ordered hierarchy of social relationships, is a most inappropriate metaphor. "Chain" suggests bondage and oppression. "Command" implies the rule of law and the external imposition of power. While such concepts accurately describe the way husbands and wives related to each other under the curse of sin (Genesis 3:16) they are totally incompatible with the "reign of grace" instituted by Christ Jesus our Lord. So, when we confront words like "headship" and "authority" in the New Testament, we must take into consideration the radically new content Christ pours into them.
Paul follows up his specific counsel to wives by an innovative and radically surprising command directed to husbands:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself" (Eph. 5:25,28, emphasis added).
When Paul instructed, "Wives, [be subject] to your own husbands" (v.22, NASB), he was not saying anything new. However, when he commanded, "Husbands, love your wives," he was voicing words never heard before. Neither in the Old Testament nor in the Talmud — the massive compilation of Jewish rabbinical teachings across the centuries — nor in any Gentile literature of the biblical era is there anything comparable to this. None of the great founders of other world religions ever said anything like that. The law of Moses commanded, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18), but nowhere specified that a husband should love his wife. The Talmud laid upon the husband the obligation to provide and care for his wife and not mistreat her, but it falls short of encouraging him to love her. Likewise, it is rare to
Page 125
read in antiquity where any man, within or outside biblical tradition, professed love for his wife. A man might declare his love for Caesar, or his best friend, or his mistress, or his horse, but love his wife? Why would he do that?24
Paul's counsel to husbands is even more striking when we note the word he used for "love." He avoided eros, which describes physical attraction, and phileo, which speaks of friendship, and the affection one has for his family or tribe or country. Rather, Paul deliberately chose a word that appears only rarely outside the New Testament, a word into which Jesus and the early Christians poured an entirely new meaning: agape. Its definition was formed and filled out by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. It came to mean "self-sacrificing, self-giving love." It is the word Paul used when he wrote, "But God proves his love [agape] for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Likewise John when he said, "In this is love [agape], not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins" (1 John 4:10).
The leadership that a husband exercises on behalf of his wife, then, has nothing to do with commanding or demanding but everything to do with giving and sacrificing. The dynamic principle governing husband-wife relationships, modeled after Christ's love for the Church, is not a power-driven hierarchy but a self-giving attitude of mutual submission. Each submits to the other and serves the other, as both submit to and serve Christ who in turn exercises His headship over the Church by giving up His life for her sake.
Once again, Paul goes against the chauvinist grain of his heritage and culture. By making sure that there will be no justification for a husband lording it over his wife, he reaffirms the truth revealed in the original creation story: namely, women have infinite worth as bearers of the image
Page 126
of God himself. They ought to be loved for their own sakes with the same kind of self-giving love by which Christ loves His Church! The only hierarchy that fits within Kingdom relationships is where the first continually seek to be the last and the least. It is the posture, not of a king but of a servant. It is Calvary love: the kind of agape love reflected in reflected in Jesus' Gethsemane prayer, "Not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39, KJV). Husbands and wives, men and women are to live together — not under the rule of law but within the reign of grace. The proper paradigm for relating to one another "in Christ" is not that of a king sitting high upon his throne but that of a servant bowed low with a towel about his waist and a wash basin in his hands.
This is only a partial survey of all that Paul has to say about women. Yet if we were to examine the rest of his writings — excluding the next two difficult passages that are the special focus of the next chapter — they would be consistent with what we have discovered to this point. We can summarize the apostle's position regarding women as follows: First, men and women are created equally in the image and glory of God, share equally in the curse of sin, and participate equally in the grace of redemption. Second, marriage relationships are not to be ordered according to an externally imposed hierarchy "according to the law" but by an internally embraced expression of self-giving love through mutual submission and full partnership. Third, women have just as much right as men to exercise their spiritual gifts in the Church and fulfill their ministry, especially if they are called to preach. The wholeness and the health of the Church depends upon the freedom of each individual to exercise his or her spiritual gift and calling to the fullest.
Chapter 6 || Table of Contents
1. Bristow, What Paul Really Said, 1. [BACK]
2. Don Williams, The Apostle Paul and Women in the Church (Ventura, Calif.: Gospel Light, 1980). [BACK]
3. See Spencer, Beyond the Curse, 115-16, for a thorough linguistic study of these two words. [BACK]
4. Williams, Apostle Paul, 45. [BACK]
6. The Analytical Greek Lexicon (New York: Harper), 354. [BACK]
7. Bristow, What Paul Really Said, 85-87. [BACK]
10. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Women, Men, and the Bible (New York: Crossroad, 1988), 79-82. [BACK]
11. Klyne R. Shodgrass, "Galatians 3:28: Conundrum or Solution?" Women, Authority, and the Bible, 174. [BACK]
14. Susie C. Stanley, Women, Authority, and the Bible, 186. [BACK]
15. Luther Lee, "Woman's Right to Preach the Gospel," Five Sermons and a Tract by Luther Lee, Donald W. Dayton, ed. (Chicago: Holrad House, 1975), 80-81; cited in Stanley, Women, Authority, and the Bible, 183. [BACK]
18. Helen Andelin, Fascinating Womanhood (Santa Barbara, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1965), 57. [BACK]
19. Morgan, The Total Woman, 80. [BACK]
20. Bristow, What Paul Really Said, 38. [BACK]
21. For a more complete exegesis of Eph. 5:21-22 see ibid., 38-41. [BACK]
22. Mollenkott, Women, 92. [BACK]
23. For a thorough study of the usage of kephale in both the Old Testament Greek Septuagint and in the Greek New Testament, see Berkeley and Alvera Michelsen's chapter, "What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?" in Women, Authority, and the Bible, 97-132. [BACK]
24. The Song of Solomon does celebrate the love of a man for a woman, but nowhere identifies her as his wife. Hosea is directed to marry Gomer, a prostitute, as a living demonstration of God's love for His adulterous bride, Israel. Even though Hosea married her and took her back a second time, there is no indication that he actually loved her for her own sake. The only exception I can find is Elkanah, Samuel's father, who gave a double portion of his sacrifices to one of his wives, Hannah, "because he loved her, though the Lord had closed her womb" (1 Samuel 1:5). In that he had at least two wives, this still falls short of the Pauline model. [BACK]