Paul’s View of Women: A Stunning Portrait and Shocking Comments

Paul’s statements on women have confused, disturbed, and even shocked many readers.

“How could he think that?” “What’s wrong with him?” Some even use Paul’s comments as a reason to reject the Bible and the Christian faith.

Others are proud of Paul’s words and use them to support their mistreatment and belittlement of women.

So what did Paul say? Here’s a sample:

• But 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. (1 Cor. 11:3 NIV)
• Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Eph. 5:22-24)
• Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 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. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)
• A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Tim. 2:11-15)

What should we do with these comments? Should we defend them because they are in the Bible, requiring women to faithfully comply? Should we call out Paul as a misogynist with flawed and harmful views of females? Or should we ignore Paul’s statements, acting like he never said them and hoping they will go away?

Let’s begin to engage these challenging passages by looking at the big picture of Paul’s theology.

Paul’s Theology

Paul was a deeply devoted first-century Jew who believed Jesus was the Messiah. He knew his Bible well, which means he knew that both males and females were created in God’s image and given the joint task of ruling over God’s creation (Gen. 1:27-28). Furthermore, he taught that both had a common destiny in Christ—reigning with Christ in redeemed bodies (Rom. 8:16-25). So far, Paul’s view of the beginning and end supports the full dignity of women. What about the present?

In the present, both males and females are recreated in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Col. 3:9-11), and receive the Holy Spirit by faith. The Spirit is the promise of the inheritance God has prepared for women and men in Christ (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:14). Additionally, the Spirit gives gifts to individual believers as he determines. These gifts are distributed for the purpose of building up the church. Since gender is not mentioned in any of Paul’s lists of spiritual gifts, and we know that women were active in various forms of ministry, including Philip’s daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9), we can conclude that the Spirit’s gifts are given to individuals regardless of gender (Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-11; Eph. 4:11).[1]

In sum, Paul’s painting on the largest canvas imaginable—past, present, and future—uses the same bright colors for both men and women. Together with men, he supports the full dignity, destiny, and gifting of women.

Positive Statements about Women

Now let’s look at specific positive statements Paul made about women.[2]

• Paul commends individual woman for their work of ministry.

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.

Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them . . . Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was . . . Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. (Rom. 16:1-12, italics added)

Romans 16 is striking because women were not publicly honored in the ancient Roman Empire yet Paul praises several women by name. Further, he describes women with the same terms he uses for men: “deacon,” “benefactor,” “co-workers in Christ Jesus,” “work hard in the Lord,” “my dear friend,” and even “apostle.” In addition to noting that women were the first proclaimers of Christ’s resurrection, N. T. Wright says that Phoebe probably carried the letter to Rome then expounded this key theological text to the believers in the capital city. If that is correct, a woman was the first teacher of Paul’s magnum opus. According to Cynthia Long Westfall, “Junia was recognized as a woman apostle in the virtually unanimous understanding of the church until the late Middle Ages” [3]. Centuries after Romans was written, interpreters changed her name from Junia to the male form Junias.

• Paul affirms equal marital rights for husband and wife.

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Cor. 7:3-5)

• Paul asserts that men and women are mutually dependent on each other under God.

Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. (1 Cor. 11:11-12)

• Paul relativizes gender and assigns the same status to men and women in Christ.

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:26-28)

Obviously, gender differences remain for those who put their faith in Christ, but they don’t play a significant role in the community of faith. In fact, ultimately these differences don’t matter because they don’t even exist— “nor is there male and female.”

The big picture and statements above support a positive assessment of Paul’s view of women. Now we are ready to engage Paul’s shocking statements with the previous data in mind.

Wearing Veils (1 Cor. 11)

In 1 Corinthians 11 it is commonly assumed that Paul is addressing women who wanted to remove their veils and directing them to wear them in public worship. He writes,

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. (vv. 5-6)

The following points, however, support an alternate perspective: men wanted women to remove their veils, while women wanted to wear them.

• Men made the laws for veiling and prohibited lower-class women from wearing them.
• There are examples in Jewish literature of men forcing pious women to unveil. “The scoundrels ordered her to be unveiled, so that they might feast their eyes on her beauty. Those who were with her and all who saw her were weeping” (Susanna 1:31-33). Also the story of Queen Vashti may fit this scenario (Esther 1:11).
• Rather than pointing out women as the source of the contention, Paul’s conclusion includes men: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16). The Greek text does not use feminine nouns or adjectives (e.g., “anyone”) and the concept of arguing with Paul most likely applies to men. “Most women in the first-century culture would have been extremely reluctant to have conversations with a man who was not her husband, let alone argue with Paul.”[4]

Why would women want to wear veils? Because veils were a status symbol. Sarah Ruden writes, “Respectable Greek and Roman women traditionally wore concealing veils in public. Marriage and widowhood were the chief things that a veil signaled . . . The veil was the flag of female virtue, status, and security.”[5] Who was not allowed to wear veils? Slaves, prostitutes, and freedwomen. By teaching that all women should cover their heads or wear veils in house church meetings, Paul was equalizing social relationships in the Christian community. Additionally, veils served as protection: “Covered hair in public represented modesty, honor, status, and protection for a woman, and an uncovered head in public disgraced a woman and put her sexually at risk”[6]. In other words, women who did not veil were sexually available, while those who wore veils were off-limits.

In that context, do you think women wanted to remove their veils or wear them? Understanding the dignity ascribed to ancient veils, along with details in the passage, leads to the possibility that Paul is addressing men who wanted women to remove their veils. This one change in perspective allows us to see Paul siding with women against men, rather than imposing an unwanted restriction on women.

“The head of the woman is man” (1 Cor. 11:3)

Paul calls man “the head of the woman” (1 Cor. 11:3) and the husband “the head of the wife” (Eph. 5:23). These assertions have led many to conclude that husbands have authority over wives. However, the Greek word kephale (head) can indicate “authority” as in the head of the company or “source” as in the head of the river.

Westfall argues that “source” was the primary meaning of kephale in the ancient world so “the head of the woman is man” (1 Cor. 11:3) means that man is her source of life. This fits with the context of 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul writes, “man did not come from woman, but woman from man” (v. 8). The focus is on the man as the woman’s source or origin.

What does it mean for the man to be the woman’s source of life? It is a reference to the creation story in Genesis 2. The woman was created out of the man so he was her material source of origin. Paul knows, however, that men are also dependent on women: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God” (1 Cor. 11:11-12).

Moreover, in Paul’s time, the husband was the source of his wife’s material well-being because, in most cases, she was not formally educated and did not have a career. Moreover, women typically married much earlier than men, even in their early teenage years. Hence, in the ancient world, “the husband is the head of the wife” (Eph. 5:23) probably also refers to the husband being her source of provision.

While the primary meaning of kephale may be “source” in 1 Corinthians 11 that does not mean aspects of “authority” are entirely absent. Let’s press on to Ephesians 5.

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands” (Eph. 5:22)

In Ephesians 5 Paul writes:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Eph. 5:22-24)

First, we must keep Paul’s command in its larger literary context. It is part of a household code—a code of conduct for various members in a house, made popular by classical Greek writers. About three centuries before Paul, Aristotle writes:

The investigation of everything should begin with the smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these relationships. (Politics 1.1253b)

However, the household codes in the New Testament are unique because they include instructions for those in power: parents, masters, and husbands. And in Ephesians 5, Paul spends most of the time addressing husbands.

Second, we must consider the particular literary context. The command to submit is addressed to everyone in the preceding verse: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21). Immediately following that reference to universal submission, Paul writes, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands” (v. 22).

Third, we must keep Paul’s command in its historical context. While Paul’s instruction for wives to submit sounds harsh and chauvinistic to us, there was nothing unusual about this command in the first century. Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld writes, “The ancient household or family, indeed society generally, was organized like a pyramid, with the father at the top, then the mother, children, freed-persons and finally slaves at the bottom.”[7] The authority of the husband as the paterfamilias or “father of the family” was established by the Roman Empire and there could only be one paterfamilias in each family. In addition, “Jewish social conventions called for the subordination of wives to their husbands”[8]. So Paul’s statement echoes the standard morality of the time. “Husbands, submit to your wives,” would have sounded perverse to his first-century audience.

Fourth, the paterfamilias provided protection. David Bentley Hart writes,

The verb here and in the following verses, . . . (hypotasso), literally means “subordinate,” in the sense of either “arranging under” or of being “sub-ordinated to”; but it can also mean being “stationed under the shelter” of something or someone . . . In the case of wives and husbands, the issue here does not seem to be merely one of domestic authority . . . but also one of reciprocal service and protection. . . In the world of late antiquity a household was under the authority of the paterfamilias; but it is also the case that, in an unpoliced society, households were often small fortresses with bolted outer gates and inner doors, wives were often much younger than their husbands, and male labor was the foundation of most of the economy. So, here, a husband’s reciprocal responsibility to his wife—who is under the shelter of his household—is to lay down his life for her, on the model of Christ’s self-sacrificial headship.[9]

Fifth, while Paul uses common words and phrases, he gives them new meaning. For example, instead of elaborating on the husband’s authority and right to lead, he calls husbands to serve like Christ.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (5:25-33)

Christ is depicted as a domestic servant: washing, doing the laundry, and feeding and caring for the church. These were all tasks reserved for wives or female servants in the Greco-Roman world. Thus, by describing the ultimate “head” as a servant, Paul transforms the meaning of “head” then encourages husbands to live according to that new meaning (vv. 25, 28). Being the head in this sense supports male servanthood not male domination.

Sixth, by calling husbands to love their wives as they love themselves, Paul was not implying that wives should not do the same. How do we know? That command is simply a restatement of the greatest commandment— “love your neighbor as yourself”—which applies to everyone. Likewise, is it too far of a stretch to say that the greatest commandment means that husbands should respect their wives? It is possible that Paul believed there were issues with husbands not showing proper attention and care and wives not showing proper respect. But those are merely specific applications of the greatest commandment, which is a foundational and universal in scope.

Seventh, Paul’s instructions show a cultural awareness and pragmatic concern for the gospel. In Titus 2 he writes that women should be “subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God” (Titus 2:5). A family or community that did not preserve the standard hierarchical structure would have been viewed as suspicious and even dangerous.

In Greco-Roman society, legislating and enforcing the ‘proper’ behavior of women was a major concern for authorities because they believed that disorder in the household had seditious ramifications for the welfare of the empire. Therefore, cults and sects were often attacked because of the wild behavior of the women participants.[10]

Eighth, we must guard against these kinds of texts being used to support an abuse of power. Neufeld says, “It is better not to read the Household Code at all than to read it as a privileged, self-assured male, who takes it as permission to dominate and abuse with impunity.”[11] 

If these points don’t completely remove the difficulty with this command for modern Western readers, they should at least serve to temper its harshness. If we are going to treat Paul fairly, we must remember that he was a first-century citizen of the Roman Empire, not a twenty-first century American. He lived 1900 years before women won the right to vote.

“Woman should remain silent” (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

According to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 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.

For a variety of reasons, some scholars believe these verses are an interpolation. An interpolation is an addition made by a copyist. If that is correct, Paul did not write these comments. Philip Payne spends more than forty pages citing evidence that Paul did not write 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee arrives at the same conclusion.[12]

Here are a few reasons why 1 Cor 14:34-35 is considered to be an interpolation by some scholars. First, Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 14 makes more sense when verses 34-35 are deleted. In other words, it interrupts the flow of Paul’s thoughts in this section. Second, in the manuscripts verses 34-35 are found in different places, making them look somewhat suspicious. Third, Richard Hays, who concurs with Fee and Payne, says,

One of the strongest reasons for regarding these verses as an interpolation is that their demand for women to remain silent in the assembly stands in glaring contradiction to 11:2-16, in which Paul teaches that women may in fact pray or prophesy in church as long as they keep their heads appropriately covered. . . .

Hays continues by adding two more factors:

First, the command in verse 34 is suddenly addressed not to the specific Corinthian situation but to “the churches.” Nowhere else in 1 Corinthians does Paul shift in this way to generalized instruction for the churches at large . . . Second, the unqualified appeal to ‘the Law’ as requiring women’s subordination (v. 34b) is—to say the least—uncharacteristic of Paul’s way of appealing to Scripture as a source of behavioral norms.

All things considered, this passage is best explained as a gloss introduced into the text by the second- or third-generation Pauline interpreters who compiled the pastoral epistles.[13]

If Payne, Fee, Hays and others are correct, then 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 can be removed from our consideration of Paul’s view of women.

While agreeing that these verses are an interpolation, Westfall still engages them in the body of her book because she thinks this type of instruction may have been necessary:

Remember that Christians met in small, intimate house churches organized around fellowship meals, where women were busy with food preparation, serving food, and cleaning up, regardless of their spiritual gift. That alone creates an environment where women naturally tend to be noisy and talk among themselves to facilitate their work and enjoy each other as they work.[14]

She adds that women may have needed this instruction because they did not receive socialization through formal education.

Finally, if 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not an interpolation, it must be read in context. In 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul mentions women who pray or prophesy in meetings, so if he wrote 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, he could not have been commanding an absolute ban on women speaking in worship settings. Women, according to Paul, were allowed to prophecy. And the purpose of prophesying, as he explains in 1 Corinthians 14, is to edify or build up the body of believers. 

“I do not permit a woman to teach” (1 Tim. 2:11-15)

For many scholars who believe that women should not hold an official teaching position in the church, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is a key passage. It says:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Tim. 2:11-15)[15]

The traditional interpretation of these verses asserts that women should not serve as senior pastors or teaching pastors because that would require them “to teach or to assume authority over a man.” Some also claim that a woman should not be allowed to preach a sermon or give a teaching with men in the audience. In other words, the conventional interpretation takes this statement as a universal restriction on women teaching in public worship settings. But the following points should be considered. 

First, we must keep the historical context in mind. Paul is writing a personal letter to Timothy, urging him to stay in Ephesus to address the false teaching that was spreading (1 Tim. 1:3-4). Paul calls the false teaching “old wives’ tales” (1 Tim. 4:7), and “myths” (1:4), which involved “endless genealogies” (1:4). He also warns Timothy about young widows who are idle and go from “house to house” talking “nonsense” (5:13). In addition, we know that Artemis was the patron goddess of Ephesus and the worship of Artemis was a female-only cult because she was believed to provide safety for women in childbirth. Based on the internal and external evidence, it is likely that women were especially involved in spreading the false teaching in Ephesus so Paul gives them special attention in 1 Timothy 2. He believed women needed to be corrected and that correction had to begin with their husbands teaching them at home.

Second, although it sounds like Paul is giving new information to Timothy: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet,” this was one of Paul’s last letters and by this time he and Timothy would have worked together closely for at least a decade. Why would he need to tell Timothy about a universal rule regarding women’s roles at this point? Wouldn’t Timothy already know Paul’s thinking on this topic? Viewing Paul’s words as a temporary ban due to a specific problem makes better sense of Paul’s long-term association with Timothy.[16]

Third, Philip Payne argues that “the verb ‘to permit’ never refers to a universal or permanent situation in any of its uses in the LXX or NT”[17]. (The LXX is the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament.) The one exception is 1 Cor. 14:34, which, as we have seen, may be an interpolation. Thus, “I do not permit” should be translated “I am not permitting” showing the temporary nature of the restriction.

Fourth, a first-century woman in the Roman Empire could be head of a household, a master of male slaves, a mother of sons, and a patron of men (Westfall, 246). Westfall writes,

Many follow John Piper in suggesting that a wife’s subordination is really the subordination of women to men in the church and society. Piper fails to recognize that some women in the church at Ephesus, for example, would have been responsible and required to exercise legitimate authority over their male slaves and servants.[18]

Consequently, the fact that female slave owners had to teach their male slaves should inform our understanding of the statement “that a woman should not teach or assume authority over a man.”

Fifth, regarding, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission,” women were not formally educated, and therefore, most were illiterate. Paul was encouraging them to learn. They had to sit and listen because they couldn’t read.

Sixth, the debate over 1 Timothy 2:11-15 includes the meaning of the Greek word authenteo, which only appears once in the New Testament. The scholarly literature on the meaning of this one word is enormous. It is translated as “assume authority” in the NIV: “to teach or to assume authority over a man.” Other versions use “exercise authority.” Since authority can be positive or negative depending on how it is attained and exercised, the controversy surrounds the nature of authority. If authenteo should be understood negatively, a woman should not usurp, dominate, or “control her husband” (Common English Bible). That, however, does not mean that a man is allowed to exercise this type of authority over his wife. In fact, writing a few centuries later, John Chrysostom (AD 349-407) says that husbands should not authentein their wives. Even if authenteo should be understood in a positive sense, the previous points encourage us to view 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as focused on a specific problem in first-century Ephesus.

Finally, the statement “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13) should not be viewed as an argument for the priority of males over females based on the order of creation. After all, primogeniture is overturned several times in Genesis with divine blessing going to the younger child. Westfall proposes two interpretations: (1) It could be Paul’s way of correcting a popular myth among the women in Ephesus that essentially dispensed with the need for men. Remember the worship of Artemis was a female-only cult. (2) It could be “an analogy to the order of spiritual formation” [19]—from Paul to Timothy to reliable men (2 Tim. 2:2) to their wives. Since the false teaching was spreading among women, the correct teaching would have to come from the husbands to the wives.

The traditional interpretation, banning woman from some forms of Christian ministry, places a tremendous amount of weight on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. But we have strong reasons for seeing 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as a temporary and culturally-bound teaching. Whatever Paul was doing in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, he could not have been silencing women for all time in all places. That simply does not fit with the rest of the data. Paul’s church meetings were open to anyone who wanted to pray, prophesy, or sing:

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. (1 Cor. 14:26)

He only insisted that all women wear a veil, which would have been for their benefit and dignity.

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. (1 Cor. 11:5)

So should women be allowed to serve as church leaders and pastors? That depends. Should we take one passage (1 Tim. 2:11-15) and run with it? Or should we allow other passages to inform our understanding of 1 Timothy 2? Should we focus on Paul’s words in isolation from their historical and literary setting? Or should we seek to understand Paul within his first-century context?

Conclusion

On the surface to modern Western ears, some of Paul’s comments (or comments ascribed to Paul) sound chauvinistic. But when we dig deeper into the meaning of words, textual criticism, and the literary and historical setting, our view of Paul begins to change. Additionally, Paul’s commendation of women and the big picture of his theology paints a positive and life-giving view of women.

For me, understanding the historical setting is vital to biblical interpretation. But even if I knew nothing about that context, the big picture of Paul’s thinking—his theological context—informs my thinking of his shocking statements. I can’t push Paul’s theological canvas to the side because the weight is too heavy and the scale is too large. That canvas includes:

• The creation of men and women in God’s image with the purpose of ruling together over God’s creation
• The joint destiny of men and women as heirs with Christ
• The Spirit given to believers regardless of gender
• The gifts of the Spirit given to believers regardless of gender

These points lead me to support women in all areas of Christian ministry.

Genesis 3 is an aberration in this incredible picture of joint rulership. As a consequence for their rebellion, Adam and Eve’s relationship suffered. Regarding her husband, Eve was told, “he will rule over you” (Gen. 3:16), but it wasn’t that way from the beginning and it won’t be that way in the end.[20]

P. S. In this post I have argued in support of egalitarianism, relying primarily on the work of Cynthia Long Westfall and Philip Payne. If you want to hear the other side (always a good idea), frequently called complementarianism, see Two Views of Women in Ministry. In my opinion, the historical argument is a strength of complementarianism. Jesus chose twelve men to be his disciples, and throughout history, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestant believers have supported male leadership. Finally, it’s possible to take an undecided position. Regarding female ordination, in a 2011 blog post, Michael Heiser writes, “I don’t see absolute clarity on this issue — I think that is where the biblical text leaves us — and that’s okay with me.” For practical reasons, though, church officials must come to a conclusion on this issue.

—————————————————————————————————

[1] These insights come from Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), chs. 3, 5, 7.

[2] Paul’s positive statements about women are highlighted in Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009).

[3] Westfall, 270. See also Eldon J. Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005).

[4] Westfall, 37.

[5] Sarah Ruden, Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time (New York: Image Books, 2010), 85.

[6] Ruden, 87.

[7] Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity: Violence and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), 98.

[8] Payne, 277.

[9] David Bentley Hart, The New Testament: A Translation (New Haven, Yale, 2017), Kindle 8889.

[10] Westfall, 12-13.

[11] Neufeld, 107.

[12] See Gordon Fee’s comments on these verses in The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2014).

[13] Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: Westminster, John Knox, 2011) 246.

[14] Westfall, 238-9.

[15] Many modern scholars believe that Paul didn’t write 1 Timothy. If that is the case, this passage can also be removed from our consideration of Paul’s view of women. However, since Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles has been the standard historical view, I have decided to engage it as part of Paul’s view of women.

[16] While many assume a public worship setting for 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Westfall makes a compelling case that it should not be restricted to that setting. She lists five reasons, including the fact that Paul does not mention veils even though he gives instructions for women’s attire in verses 9-10, for understanding the setting as a private meeting between a husband and wife in the home (Westfall, ch. 9).

[17] Payne, 385.

[18] Westfall, 263-4.

[19] Westfall, 74.

[20] I understand that every culture and subculture is in a different place in its view and treatment of women and change often takes place gradually. Further, rather than being imposed upon, change is most effective when it comes from within. Paul seems to have a preference for using his authority to make appeals rather than giving commands (see Philemon). He wanted his churches to comply willingly by taking their own initiative (2 Cor. 8-9). Additionally, Paul was pragmatic in his mission. He told wives to be “subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God” (Titus 2:5). His instruction has outsiders in mind. The lifestyles of believers should make “the teaching about God our Savior attractive” to others (v. 10). What does all of this mean for the topic at hand? It means that we should consider the reality that in some cultures it may not be “attractive” to have women teaching men or to have women in leadership roles at this particular time. The conclusion of this post should not lead from one extreme—the universal ban of women teaching to the other extreme—the universal requirement of women teaching in all times and places. I believe, however, that every group seeking to follow Christ, should be moving, quickly or slowly, in big ways or little ways, in the direction of Paul’s big picture.

Les Bridgeman

After graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I served as a high school Bible teacher in Asia. I enjoy traveling, writing, and playing the drums. For a deep dive into church history and the character of God, see my book Surprised by Hell.