April 7, 2008
-
The Book of Isaiah Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4 Paul & the Female Controversy 4
The Book of Isaiah
Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4
Paul & the Female Controversy 4
Again, I continue in the information I found in the previously mentioned book, “In Search of Paul.”
The basic Pauline principle of equality among Christians applies not just to slavery, but to patriarchy as well. In Paul’s theology, Christian gender inequality can no more exist than can Christian class inequality. Females and males are therefore equal in family, assembly, and apostolate within Christianity.
Equal in the Family
Paul received a set of questions from a divided assembly he founded in Corinth. They were inquiring whether complete sexual separation and total ascetic abstention were mandatory for Christians, and whether such celibate abstention was the normal form of Christian life. Was it not better, they asked, for a man not even to touch a woman?
In 1 Cor 7, Paul insists that marriage and intercourse are permissible, but still ascetic abstention is preferable.
1Cr 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
1Cr 7:17 …as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk.
Paul distinguishes permissible marriage (you could) from preferable celibacy (you should), but accepts the latter himself rather than holding both options as equally good, equally holy, equally possible Christian states of life. We emphasize that Paul’s preference is about celibacy over marriage and not about inequality over equality for both women and men within either status. There is a consistent equality of female with male or male with female throughout Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor 7.
It is so explicitly done, so clearly exaggerated, that it is obviously intentional. Whatever he says of one spouse, he then says of the other: the wife does this, the husband does the same; the husband does that, the wife does the same. Watch the persistence of this mutuality as equality over four subtopics: On intercourse (7:3-5), on divorce (7:10-16), on virginity (7:25-28), and on worries and anxieties (7:33-34).
There is, however, one section in 1 Cor that seems to silence women within the Christian assembly, which would certainly exalt men over women with regard to ecclesiastical status. That, of course, would be a strange dichotomy, given what Paul says in Gal 3:28, that there is neither male nor female in Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
How therefore are we to understand 1 Cor 11:3-16?
1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Cr 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Cr 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1Cr 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Cr 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.
1Cr 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
1Cr 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Cr 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Cr 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.
1Cr 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
If you focus only on the women, it is plausible to argue that Paul is subordinating them to men (based on scriptural text, social dress and church custom). On the other, if you focus only on the men and realize that Roman males normally covered their heads for worship, as with the statue of Augustus as a priest at sacrifice, it is plausible to argue that Paul is opposing pagan religious practice.
If however, you notice how the text oscillates between women and men, men and women, you would have to take both sexes into any correct explanation.
Paul takes it for granted that both women and men pray and prophesy in liturgical assembly. That is not the problem of the text. Its a problem of the proper head covering for each of them in that situation. But why was that so important an issue?
At Corinth, presumably as a defiant challenge to inequality and a dramatic statement of equality, men and women had reversed modes of head covering in prayer, so that men worshipped with covered heads and women with uncovered heads.
In other words, Paul was confronted with a negotiation not just of gender hierarchy, but of gender difference, and he stutters almost incoherently in trying to argue against it. Of course, women and men were equal “in the Lord” and “from God,” but there should be no denial of ordinary dress codes or standard head coverings.
The difference between women and men, however, that was customarily and socially signified, must be maintained, even while hierarchy or subordination was negated.
The passage in 1 Cor 11:3-16 is the best Paul can do on that subject. But the text is emphatically not about hierarchical inequality, but about differential equality. Paul presumes equality between women and men in the assembly, but absolutely demands that they follow the socially accepted dress codes of their time and place.
Difference, yes. Hierarchy, no. That interpretation of a very difficult passage is strongly confirmed by the next section for if women are silenced in the assembly, how can they be prominent in the apostolate?
Comments (3)
I was reading something in a book that you also touched on a little bit in the beginning of your post which has been confusing me. I don’t understand if Paul is saying that it’s better to be celibate than married or if he’s saying it’s his preferred choice for himself and that it doesn’t necessarily apply to other Christians, thus making both choices equally honored by God. I know it’s not really the topic you were aiming for but I’ve been unclear on it for a while now ever since I read the book “Living Single”.
We strictly obey the dress codes and policies of our church.
@UnityK – Paul’s opinion was that celibacy was better as far as one’s devotion to doing God’s will is concerned, because when you are married, your time is split between God and the needs of your spouse and family. It was his preference to stay celibate, but the language here is what tells you…”could” versus “should.” Neither is a mandate, ie: “must.” The first is an option to consider, the second is more of a request. If he had said “must,” it would be a requirement or rule, but he didn’t say that. I notice, however, how much Paul’s words are taken in the context of “must” by many churches who, for whatever reason or agenda, wish to enforce a particular doctrine on its body of members.