50 - Paul and Women

Paul and Women
By Barbara Hall

Many Christian women, concerned about liberation, are becoming increasingly uneasy about the Bible. For example, the apostle Paul is quoted to them: "… women should keep silence in the churches" (1 Cor. 14:34). "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph. 5:21). In the face of comments like these, one has, presumably, two choices. Either we regard Paul as authoritative for us, and accept his message as one that conflicts with the women's struggle for liberation, or we dismiss him, in part or wholly. I think we have another choice. We need Paul, and he can help us in various ways. If he is to do so, we must remove at least two obstacles that separate us from him.

The first obstacle is our careless and superficial way of reading him. There are some simple methods in Bible study that can help us listen seriously to Paul. Let us take the offending passages and see how these methods work.

I

Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:21-33; 1 Tim. 2:8-15; 5:3-16; Titus 2:3-5. 1 have grouped these passages together because, with the possible exception of Col. 3:18, none of them was written by Paul. They were all written by followers of Paul, at a later time (roughly A.D. 80-125), and addressed to situations different from those Paul faced. These passages are not thereby eliminated from our New Testaments, of course. However, if we are to listen to what Paul says to us, we must first know what he wrote.

If we are to study these passages, there are several approaches that will help us. First, we can ask where they occur in the epistles and what that tells us about their purpose. A quick reading of the material will show that the words about women/wives occur in rather long passages of moral instruction that include injunctions about familial and church relationships:

Col. 3:18
Eph. 5:21-33
1 Tim. 2:8-15
5:3-16
Tit. 2:3-5

Col.3:12-4:5
Eph. 5:1-6:20
Tim. 2:1-3:13
5:1-22
Tit. 2:1-3:11

Barbara Hall recently received her doctorate in New Testament studies from Union Theological Seminary and is currently a member of a theological community in Reston. Va., called Colloquy of Reston. This article originally appeared in Concern magazine and is reprinted here by special arrangement.

51 - Paul and Women

We will get some perspective on the advice about women from asking about the other kinds of advice given, the general tone of the whole passage. We will also get clues about the historical situation in which these words were written and their function in that setting. From these texts alone, but also from the rest of the epistles, it is clear that the writings are directed to a period when the church was settling down for a long stay in the world, dealing with the need to consolidate and order its life in the face of growing heresy and persecution (see, for example, I Tim. 4:1-5 and Titus 1: 10- 1 6; 3:9-1 1). The subordination of wives, children, and slaves was part of that consolidation. One may regret the consequences of that movement, but it is surely important to inquire into the reasons for it.

It is equally important to ask where the authors of these letters got this instruction. Did they make it up out of whole cloth? Did it come as a direct revelation from God? Is it an inevitable result of believing in Jesus Christ? We get some clues on these matters when we learn that these "household rules" are typical of ethical instruction, both Greek and Jewish, of the time, and not at all unique to the Christian community. It looks very much as if the early church did what we do-that is, they took ideas and practices from their surroundings. The decisive question for the study of these passages is, then: in what ways has the Christian gospel made its impact on these ethical codes? When we have taken the time and effort to listen to the New Testament in this careful way, we can then ask whether and in what ways it helps us to live faithfully in our time.

II

Turning to Paul himself, we may look first at Gal. 3:28. As we did in relation to the other passages, we ask where Paul might have gotten the curious idea that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. We find, both in the stories of the rabbis of the time and also in Mark 12:25, the notion that in the kingdom of God men and women will be like angels, sexless. Paul appeals to this notion in Galatians and by analogy includes some other normal human distinctions (Jew/Gentile, slave/free) that are also abolished in Christ Jesus. The Jew/Gentile distinction is the first of a list of three, indicating that it is the most important in Paul's mind. He speaks of the present, however. Thus we know that Paul is saying that the conditions to be expected in the future kingdom of God are in some ways characteristic of life in the church (in Christ Jesus) now. Since that is a very extraordinary thing for Paul to say, we must try to account for it.

It will help to look, as we did above, at the literary context of this verse. It is part of a passage that begins with Gal. 3:6 and ends with Gal. 4:7. The theme of the whole is sonship, beginning with sonship to Abraham and ending with sonship to God. The argu-

52 - Paul and Women

ment (much oversimplified) is: One becomes a son of God, heir to the promise made to Abraham, in Christ Jesus (3:14). The coming of Christ has created a genuinely new situation in which the normal distinctions that the world makes are transformed and transcended. Relationships are freed and changed.

We may ask: against what historical background does Paul make such a claim? It is obvious from the whole epistle that he is speaking to churches in which some Jewish Christians are insisting that to be a real Christian one must be circumcised and keep the Jewish law (see 4:21, 5:2, 6:12). Paul argues against Christians who would regard the coming of Christ as an event in continuity with Judaism's past, not as the inauguration of a genuinely new era. In that argument, Gal. 3:28 says not only that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but much more: Jews are no better than Gentiles in the church. The same is true for the other two pairs: the free are no better than the slaves; men are no better than women. Paul does not for a moment suppose that these distinctions have ceased to exist in the world. They are certainly inappropriate in the church.

All of this suggests, I think, that as we ponder liberation and the transformation of relationships, we would do well to be in contact with Paul, to ask how he understood liberation (one of the great themes of Galatians) and transformation to be related to Jesus Christ. To struggle with that question is surely more interesting and profitable than to argue about whether Gal. 3:28 does or does not support the equality of women with men.

(In I Cor. 12:13, Paul uses the same set of contrasts as Gal. 3:28, but omits "male and female." Does that mean that he has -changed his mind about the status of women? I think not. It only means that there were various questions about women that had to be dealt with in Corinth and he deals with them. This was apparently not the case in the Galatian churches.)

II Cor. 11:3. At first glance, this verse appears to record Paul's use of another Jewish notion. Some of the stories told about the Genesis 3 account of the first sin had it that Eve had disobeyed God's command, but Adam had not. The author of I Tim. 2:13-15 used this point of view. One does not need much imagination to guess what stands behind that story in first-century Jewish culture. That Paul did not share this interpretation of the Fall is clear from Rom. 5:12-21. Why, then, does Paul think of Eve when he is writing the Corinthian passage? A glance at the Greek version of Gen. 3:13 gives the answer when compared to the Greek Paul employed. The verb "deceive" in II Corinthians is a form of the same verb employed in the Genesis account. (Unfortunately, the English versions do not note the similarity.) Paul believed that his opponents in Corinth, Jewish Christians (see II Cor. 11:22), were deceiving the church there. Eve comes to mind as he thinks of the deception. He turns the Scripture against its staunchest defenders.

53 - Paul and Women

As we try to interpret Scripture meaningfully in our situation, we might study how Paul interpreted the Old Testament in his time and place. This is a complex problem, but I think more interesting and profitable than reading into II Cor. 11:3 beliefs that Paul did not hold.

III

I Cor. 7:1-40. Paul's discussion of marriage presents many problems to the modern reader. He appears to have a peculiar view of sex and the Marriage relationship (7:1-7). He sounds very conservative, to say the least (7:17-24). In terms of his attitude toward women, however, this chapter exhibits a surprisingly progressive view for a first-century Hellenistic Jew/Christian.

A glance at the chapter makes clear that Paul is answering questions put to him by the Corinthian Christians. Chapter 7 begins a long section in which he responds to their queries: "Now concerning matters about which you wrote …" I Cor. 11:34 says, "About the other things I will give directions when I come." (The second part of 7:1 is almost certainly a quotation from the Corinthians' letter, and the verse should read in English translation: "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is well for a man not to touch a woman."' This is similar to I Cor. 8: 1.) The questions must have been something like the following:

Is it not better for the unmarried and the widows not to marry? (Vss. 1, 8, 25)

Should those who are married be divorced? (Vss. 10-11)

Should Christians who are married to unbelievers divorce them? (Vs. 12)

These literary clues suggest the historical situation to which Paul wrote. There may have been a strong asceticism among the Corinthians that frowned on any sexual experience. The advocates of this stand may have cited Paul's celibacy as part of the authority for their position (see vs. 6). Predictably, this strenuous morality was causing problems (vss. 5, 9, 36). In the situation Paul clearly stood for marriage.

In relation to the status of women, what is of most interest are the statements that suggest the equality and mutuality of men and women. There are no fewer than six of these in this passage (vss. 3-4, 10-11, 12-13, 14, 16, and 32-33). Paul often speaks in this kind of parallel way, but these statements are highly repetitious and therefore emphatic. These are extraordinary comments from a first-century man. I wonder how many of Paul's contemporaries would have said, ". . . likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does." If one suspects that even so a notion of the subordination of women to men lurks in the background (see vss. 36 and 39, also Rom. 7:2), this is only to indicate that Paul was a man of his time. Women were certainly subordinate to men both

54 - Paul and Women

in Judaism and in Hellenistic society. We know from the first set of passages discussed that the church accepted that pattern for herself soon after Paul. What is surprising is to find something else in Paul, and something expressed in such an emphatic way. As contemporary women ponder the patterns of their relationships to men, with all of their institutional and personal ambiguities, we could do worse than to ask what made Paul, a man of his own time, and a celibate, come to such an understanding of the equality and mutuality in relationships between men and women.

I Cor. 11:2-16; 14:33-36. What may lurk in the background in I Cor. 7 occupies center stage in these two passages. However one interprets them, it is difficult to believe we can erase the patent male chauvinism in them. The situation seems very clear. Paul deals with various abuses and problems related to public worship in 11:2-14:34. At the beginning and end of this long section, he speaks for the subordination of women, thereby giving this issue a special prominence. Obviously, church services in Corinth were chaotic and unedifying (see 11:18, 21; 14:27-30). It may even be that Paul had reason to know that the jumble of speaking in tongues, prophecy, interpretation going on simultaneously was due to some of the Corinthian women. That does not cancel the fact that he urges order partly on the ground of woman's subordination to man.

There are many puzzling factors about these two passages. The whole question of veiling is something of a mystery. No one knows exactly what the custom for women was at the time. Why does Paul call the veil "authority" in 11: 10? Still more difficult is the apparent conflict between 11:5 and 14:34. In the first verse, it is clear that women prophesy and pray aloud in church services; in the second, Paul forbids them to speak.

However one solves these questions, we see clearly Paul's appeal to male domination here. Once again, this is no surprise. Paul simply uses the ideas and practices of his time. What is again surprising is to find something else also present. I Cor. 11:11-12 is astonishing. Arguing that women are subordinate to men on the basis of the God-given creation (11:7-9) and on the basis of the Christian's relation to God through Christ (11:3), Paul suddenly interrupts himself in vss. 11-12 with a comment that undercuts his own argument. The point of these verses is the equality of women with men. We are reminded of Gal. 3:28, especially because Paul says in vss. 11-12, "Nevertheless, in the Lord, …" and "And all things are from God." That is, in the Christian community where relationships are freed and transformed, one cannot speak of the subordination of women without some qualifying remark.

In 14:34, Paul supports his claim that women are subordinate by the appeal, "even as the law says." The law means for Paul the Old Testament(see,forexample,Gal.4:21). Where does the Old Testament say women are subordinate? Obviously, in Genesis 3:16, where

55 - Paul and Women

the lower status of women is a consequence of the Fall. But those consequences have begun to be reversed, nullified by Christ's coming and the establishment of the Christian community (see, for example, Gal. 3:13-14 and Rom. 5:12-21). In his better moments (Gal. 3:28 and I Cor. 7), Paul recognized the implications of this reversal for the status of women. Even here, in his worst moment (from a woman's point of view), he cannot quite ignore the powerful thrust of Christian faith against his argument, and he records it.

IV

As women struggle to overcome an enforced limitation on their full humanity, a limitation often defended by appeal to these texts, we may acquire weapons for the battle by listening to a well-known enemy who turns out to be an ally.

A cartoon appeared recently in one of the women's magazines that showed an irate woman, arms akimbo, reproaching a minister of the church: "It is written! It is written! Don't you ever have a thought of your own?" The cartoon illustrates nicely the curiously simplistic notion of biblical authority held by many Christians. The Christian believes that in the Bible we hear God's word addressed to us. Somehow that belief implies that one cannot disagree with anything that is said in the Bible. (No one really lives by this, of course, but we sometimes think we should.)

What kind of authority does the Bible have and how does it function in our lives? These are difficult questions. But if we do not work on them, if we accept the simplified view, we are reduced to swapping texts with our opponents or to ignoring the Bible because it is against us.

In relation to Paul, we may try to compromise by saying some think like, "Paul is not really so bad. He was after all a man of his time. He is complex and says different things." These are all true, but to deal with Paul in this way will not help us. It is a defensive, half-apologetic approach that at best can neutralize his apparent support for the other side. Paul and the rest of the Bible offer us more than that-namely, some important things about how liberation and transformation of relationships occur concretely, and how we may lay hold of them. We can be in dialogue with Paul in such a way that we will be better equipped to work for liberation. That means that we must listen seriously to him, treat him as a whole man, understand him in his world, under the impact of his experience of Christian faith.

But, in addition, dialogue means that we have something to say too. We may agree or disagree with some of his convictions. We may struggle with him and fight him, as his Christian opponents in Corinth and Galatia did. But if we are serious about liberation, we must not let the male chauvinists have him. He has too much to offer us; we need him.