Day: May 5, 2020

Women in the Church, Part 4: Romans 16:1-2ff

Romans 16:1-2ff

The next primary passage to be examined in this series is Romans 16:1-2ff, in particular, the references to the women mentioned by Paul in this chapter.

Historical and Literary Context

Romans was written by Paul sometime after 54 A.D., probably from Corinth. In the context of the missionary journeys described in the book of Acts, this presumably would have taken place during the third journey (cf. Acts 20:1-3). This situation of the letter is unique in that Paul had not yet visited Rome (though he was eager to do so, Rom 1:10-15; 15:22-29), and played no direct role in the establishment of Christianity there. He did know, it would seem, a number of believers in the Roman churches, as indicated by the greetings in chapter 16. By all accounts, churches or groups of believers had been present in Rome from nearly the beginning (cf. below on 16:7, and note Acts 2:10; 18:2), from both Jewish and Gentile (Greco-Roman) backgrounds. This is the catalyst for the framework of the letter—addressed to both Jewish and Gentile Christians—expressing a great hope for unity, especially in light of his pending journey to Jerusalem with the collection taken up (in Greece and Macedonia, etc) for the suffering believers there. A good many of the themes from Galatians are picked up and developed in Romans.

It has often been suggested that chapter 16 is part of a separate letter, and was not addressed to the churches in Rome, but rather to those in another location (such as Ephesus). Moreover, there is evidence that Romans circulated in a form which lacked either chapters 15-16 or 16:1-23 (cf. Fitzmyer, pp. 47-67). However, this is far from conclusive, and the weight of the (textual) evidence suggests that chap. 16 is part of the original letter (except for verse 24, which is almost certainly a subsequent addition). If so, then 16:1-23 serves as the conclusion to the letter (Epistolary Postscript), with vv. 25-27 as the concluding doxology. It may be divided as follows:

  • Recommendation of Phoebe to the Roman congregations (vv. 1-2)
  • Greetings to believers in Rome (vv. 3-16)
  • Final exhortation (and warning) (vv. 17-20)
  • Further greetings from Paul and his secretary/scribe (vv. 21-23)

Exegetical Notes

In the notes on this chapter, I will be focusing on the references to women—the female friends and colleagues of Paul to whom he sends greeting.

16:1-2—Phoebe (Foi/bh, lit. “Bright/Shining [One]”). These verses serve as an official introduction (recommendation) of Phoebe to the Christians of Rome; in all likelihood, she would have been the one carrying the letter. This is the technical sense of the verb suni/sthmi (“set/stand with”) which begins the chapter: “I cause her to stand (together) with you”, an idiom meaning “I introduce her to you”, i.e. “I (re)commend her to you”. She is called “our sister [i.e. in Christ]”, as a term of affection and respect, beyond simply identifying her as a believer. Phoebe is also described here by two specific words (or titles):

1. dia/kono$ (diákonos), “servant”. This word in Greek has a wide range of specific meaning, from a waiter at tables (Xenophon, Mem. 1.5.2, cf. Acts 6:1-6) to a person who holds a public (religious) office (cf. Rom 13:4). In early Christianity, it corresponds roughly to the English word “minister”. Paul uses it to refer to himself (an apostle), along with fellow missionaries and church leaders such as Apollos, Epaphras, and Tychicus—cf. 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:15, 23; Col 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7; also Eph 3:7; 6:21, and 1 Tim 4:6. It does not appear to be used in the sense of a specific office within an organized Church structure, as would have developed by the early 2nd-century (Ignatius Ephesians 2:1; Magnesians 6:1), and which may be indicated in 1 Tim 3:8, 11-12; Tit 1:9 (cf. also Phil 1:1). The technical use of the word for the developed office is typically transliterated in English as deacon. Phoebe is sometimes referred to as a deaconess, but this is anachronistic, and the gender-specific term (diakonissa) is not used in the New Testament (cf. Fitzmyer, p. 729).

2. prosta/ti$ (prostátis), from the verb proi+/sthmi (“stand before”). It literally means “one who stands before”, i.e. as a leader or one who gives help and assistance to others. It can be used in the technical sense of a patron (Lat. patronus) or protector, implying one who possesses a higher socio-economic status. Generally, it should be understood as someone in a leadership role (cf. the use of the related verb in 1 Thess 5:12; Rom 12:8), but here it could also mean that Phoebe provided financial assistance, etc, to Paul when he was in Corinth (Cenchreae being a key port/harbor for Corinth). Phoebe thus appears to have been a prominent woman (perhaps a well-to-do business woman), who also served a leading role as minister in the congregations of Cenchreae (and Corinth).

16:3-5a Prisca (Pri/ska, of Latin origin), cf. also 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19. In the book of Acts, she is called Priscilla (Pri/skilla, “Little Prisca“). She is always mentioned together with her husband Aquila ( )Aku/la$), and typically her name comes before his, which may indicate that she was the better-known figure in Christian circles. From Acts (18:2), we know that she and her husband were Jews (probably already Jewish Christians) who had been living in Rome prior to the expulsion ordered by Claudius c. 49 A.D., after which they lived and worked in Corinth and Ephesus (traveling there together with Paul, 18:18). Now it would seem that they have returned to Rome, where they lead/host a congregation in their house, as they did in Corinth (1 Cor 16:19). Prisca (with her husband) was prominent and gifted enough as a minister to instruct Apollos “more precisely in the Way [of God]” (Acts 18:26), which indicates that she was capable of exercising a teaching role in the Church. The couple was known and respected by many congregations (Rom 16:4b).

Paul refers to them as sunergoi/ (v. 3), meaning that Prisca was a sunergo/$ (sunergós), literally one who “works (together) with” him [i.e. with Paul]. This term (or title) is used by Paul numerous times in his letters, in reference to friends and fellow-missionaries (or Church leaders) who work closely with him in proclaiming the Gospel and establishing/strengthening the churches—cf. Rom 16:21; 1 Cor 3:9; 2 Cor 1:24; 8:23; Phil 2:25; 4:3; Col 4:11; 1 Thess 3:2; Philem 1, 24. The reference here and in Phil 4:3 (cf. below) indicates that Paul uses the word for fellow ministers—men and women—without distinction.

16:6 Maryam (Mari/a, i.e. Mary), of whom it is simply said that she “did much labor/work [e)kopi/asen] unto us [i.e. on our behalf]”.

16:7 Junia ( )Iouni/a). It is also possible to read  )Iounia=n instead of  )Iouni/an, which would make it the shortened form of a man’s name (Junian[us]) ; however, this is highly unlikely (cf. Fitzmyer, pp. 737-8, and UBS/Metzger, p. 475). It is sometimes thought that she was the wife of Andronicus, with whom she is mentioned together here. Paul indicates that Andronicus and Junia share the same ethnic/religious origin (suggenei=$) with him, meaning they are Jewish Christians, and that they have also suffered imprisonment just as he has. They “(have) a mark upon [e)pi/shmo$]” them, i.e. are remarkable/noteworthy “among the apostles”. This phrase could mean (a) they are highly regarded by the apostles, or (b) they are apostles, and prominent among them. Some commentators are reluctant to grant the latter, as it would mean than Junia is an “apostle”; this difficulty almost certainly explains the attempts to read Junia as a man’s name. Otherwise, it would be the only time in the New Testament that the word a)po/stolo$ was applied to a woman. However, this may the result of a basic misconception. The noun a)po/stolo$ (apóstolos), from a)poste/llw (“set/send forth”) in the early Church (perhaps influenced by Jesus’ own use of it) came to have a distinct semi-technical meaning—someone who has been commissioned (sent forth) by Jesus to proclaim the Gospel and make disciples/converts (in his name). If Andronicus and Junia are counted among the apostles, this may simply mean that they are of the first generation of believers—Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (such as Barnabas, etc)—who either saw the resurrected Jesus (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor 15:6), or were part of the earliest events (Acts 2ff). Paul states that “they have come to be in Christ before me”, i.e. “they had been Christians before I was”.

16:12-13—Four women are mentioned: Tryphaina and Tryphosa (Tru/faina & Trufw=sa, both lit. “Luxurious [One]” or the like), who may have been sisters, and Persis (Persi/$) who may have been a slave. Of all three, Paul says that they “did much labor/work [e)kopi/asen] in the Lord” (cf. v. 6 above). He also mentions the mother (of Rufus), a woman Paul considers to be like his own mother (“…his mother and mine”).

Interpretation

Of the persons whom Paul specifically mentions in verses 3-16 (including Phoebe in vv. 1-2), there are eight women compared with five men (Aquila, Andronicus, Urbanus, Apelles, Rufus). Moreover, the terms and language he uses to describe them shows little or no distinction whatever, i.e. whether they are male or female. This follows what we see elsewhere in Paul’s letters, e.g., in Philippians 4:2-3, where the women Euodia and Syntyche are considered to be close “co-workers” (sunergoi/) of Paul, alongside Clement, etc. In Romans 16, Paul uses terms such as “servant [i.e. minister]”, “co-worker”, perhaps even “apostle”, equally of men and women without distinction; only in the case of the term “apostle” [a)po/stolo$] (v. 7) is there some uncertainly that it is applied to a woman (Junia). Certainly women such as Phoebe and Prisca were ministers in their own right and prominent/leading figures in the churches, alongside Paul and Apollos, et al. While we do not necessarily have specific detail on what they did in their position of ministry on a regular/daily basis, there is nothing in the Scriptural account itself—that is, in the passages where they are mentioned—to warrant our limiting or restricting their role in any way.

References marked “Fitzmyer” above are to J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 33, 1995.
“UBS/Metzger” refers to the UBS/Metzger Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edition) 1994-2002.

May 5: 1 Corinthians 1:4-9

1 Corinthians 1:4-9

Most of Paul’s letters contain, in the introductory section (exordium), a component of thanksgiving, in which he refers to his giving thanks (to God) for the believers to whom he is writing. The introduction, or exordium, follows the initial greeting (salutation), which almost always blends into a blessing formula (i.e., “grace and peace”)—1 Corinthians provides a good example of this format:

“(The) favor [xa/ri$] (of God) be with you, and peace [ei)rh/nh] from God our Father and (our) Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed {Jesus Christ}.” (1 Cor 1:3)

More than a simple wish, such blessings serve as a compact theological statement. The same may be said of the thanksgiving which follows in 1:4-9. There are two aspects of the thanksgiving which should be noted:

    1. Rhetorical—A common rhetorical device in the exordium (introduction) of the speech or letter was the so-called captatio benevolentiae (“capture of good-will”), through which the speaker/writer seeks to gain the audience’s attention and interest with complimentary words, or by offering praise. Paul often couches this praise in the context of his offering prayer to God.
    2. Theological/Spiritual—On the one hand, the thanksgiving genuinely reflects Paul’s care and concern for the believers in the regions where he had worked as a missionary, and for the churches he had helped to found. At the same time, his thanksgiving formulae also contain a seminal theological statement that unfolds out in a long sentence, with a distinct Christological (and often eschatological) emphasis. From a rhetorical standpoint, this focuses his audience’s attention squarely on their religious identity in Christ.

The thanksgiving begins with verse 4:

“I offer good words (of thanks) to my God always about you, upon [i.e. for] the favor of God th(at) was given to you in (the) Anointed Yeshua…”

The initial verb here is eu)xariste/w (eucharistéœ), “give/offer good (words of) favor”, or, more specifically, to offer words of thanks or gratitude for a favor which was shown. Paul repeats and spells out this favor (xa/ri$, cháris) precisely: “…the favor [xa/ri$] of God that was given to you in Christ Jesus”. The Christological emphasis could not be more clear—the favor (or “grace”) lies squarely in the person and (saving) work of Christ. In verses 5-7, the emphasis shifts to the Corinthian believers (in Christ):

“…in all (thing)s you are made wealthy in him [e)n au)tw=|] , in all (spoken) account(s) [lo/go$] and in all knowledge [gnw=si$]” (v. 5)

If verse 5 emphasizes the believer’s identity in Christ, verse 6 focuses on the other side of this identity, of Christ in the believer:

“even as the witness of (the) Anointed was made firm [i.e. confirmed] in you [e)n u(mi=n]” (v. 6)

Again, in verse 7, Paul cleverly positions his praise of the Corinthians in relation to Christ—in particular, the expected appearance of Jesus at the end-time:

“so that you are not to be left behind, not in any favor granted [xa/risma] (by God), looking out to receive from (God) the uncovering of our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed” (v. 7)

This “uncovering” (a)poka/luyi$, lit. “taking the cover away from”) of Christ, refers specifically to his (impending) future appearance, as in 2 Thess 1:7, etc. The favors granted (xari/smata, charísmata) to the Corinthians—that is, their distinct spiritual “gifts”—along with their inspired words and (spiritual) knowledge (v. 5), come to be an important point of emphasis in Paul’s teaching throughout the letter (on the charismata, cf. especially chapters 12-14). Verses 4-8 comprise a single sentence in Greek, which closes on a strong eschatological note:

“who also will make you firm until (the) completion, without (anything) calling you in (to account) on the day of our Lord Yeshua [(the) Anointed].” (v. 8)

There is likely a dual-sense of the word te/lo$ (“completion”) here, referring to (a) the end of the current Age, and (b) the believer being made ‘perfect’ and complete. Note the elliptical outline of this clause:

    • (Jesus Christ) who
      —will make/keep you firm (i.e. stable, sure, strong) until…
    • the day of Jesus Christ

A second, shorter sentence in verse 9 summarizes and concludes the thanksgiving:

“Trust(worthy is) God, through whom you were called into (the) common-bond [i.e. community] of His Son Yeshua (the) Anointed, our Lord.”

Again, the emphasis is squarely on the believers’ identity in Christ, here defined in terms of being called by God.

After the thanksgiving, Paul turns to the main proposition (propositio) of the letter and his reason (causa) for writing. This is outlined in verse 10-17, with the propositio of verse 10 emphasizing the need for unity among believers, in the light of apparent divisions (and divisiveness) in the congregations. This lack of unity at Corinth had been reported to him by “the (people) of Chloe”, which could refer to the people of Chloe’s household, or to the house-church led by Chloe (meeting in her house, etc). In either case, she was clearly a prominent women in the Corinthian church. Her name is literally “Green” (Xloh/), presumably in the sense of “fresh, tender”, i.e., young and beautiful. It is worth noting her name here in light of the current series Women in the Church which I am presenting on this site. The next article (Part 4) of this series will focus on Romans 16:1-2ff, which features another prominent woman of Corinth—Phoebe, minister (dia/kono$, diákonos) in the Corinthian port town of Cenchreae.

Women in the Church, Part 3: Galatians 3:28

Galatians 3:28

The next passage to be discussed in this series is Paul’s famous statement in Gal 3:28. There is a definite tension (some would say contradiction) between the idea expressed in this verse, and Paul’s instruction elsewhere regarding the role/position of men and women in the Church. It is therefore necessary to study and explore the matter in some detail.

Historical and Literary Context

Galatians was written (by Paul) sometime in the 50’s; more precise dating has proven difficult, especially since it is not certain whether the churches he addresses are located in southern/south-central Asia Minor (modern Turkey), or in the central region. The former could have been in existence as early as the first missionary journey (cf. Acts 13:13-14:20), while the latter presumably would not have been founded until the second journey (Acts 16:6ff; 18:23). Some traditional-conservative commentators prefer an earlier date (late 40s), on the assumption that it was written prior to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and that Galatians 2 records a different meeting in Jerusalem. Most scholars, however, accept that Acts 15 and Gal 2:1-10 are separate accounts of the same basic event, and that Galatians was written after the Council. Internal evidence of style and subject matter strongly suggests that Galatians was written relatively close in time to Romans and 2 Corinthians (i.e. early-mid 50’s).

In the letter, Paul is opposing the view of certain Jewish Christians, who had maintained that Gentile (non-Jewish) believers ought to be circumcised and observe the Old Testament Law (Torah). The entire letter is written to persuade the believers in Galatia that such a religious step is not necessary—salvation and being made right (“justification”) in God’s eyes comes entirely through trust in Jesus. Moreover, in Christ, our life and ethical behavior is guided by the Spirit and the teaching/example of Jesus (the ‘love command’), not by observance of the Old Testament Law. We have true freedom in Christ, and are no longer in bondage to (i.e. bound/required to follow) the Law of the old Covenant. Of all the Pauline letters, Galatians has perhaps the clearest rhetorical structure: the main proposition (propositio) is stated in 2:15-16, along with a brief exposition in vv. 17-21. This restates the cause (causa) or purpose of his writing, as indicated in 1:6-7ff, and is prefaced by a narration (narratio) which illustrates the issues involved (1:12–2:14). The central section of the letter (chapters 3–4) is the probatio (“proof”), in which Paul produces arguments and illustrations in support of his point, and to convince the Galatians of the truth of it. The arguments Paul uses build upon one another—for example, in 3:6-14, he adduces an argument from Scripture (Gen 15:6, etc) to demonstrate that the covenant God made with Abraham is prior (and superior) to the introduction of the Law at Sinai, and that believers in Christ are the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. Now, in Gal 3:26–4:11, the argument has been refined and developed so that Paul can affirm, on the basis of Christian experience, that believers truly are the heirs of the blessings and promises to Abraham (realized in Christ).

Outline and Exegesis

Galatians 3:26-4:11 may be outlined as follows:

    • Argument: Believers are the sons/heirs of the divine blessing and promise (3:26-29)
      • Basic statement—sons/heirs through trust in Christ (v. 26)
      • Demonstration—symbolism of the Baptism ritual (vv. 27-28)
      • Conclusion—this is a fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham (v. 29)
    • Illustration (proof): The heir comes of age (in Christ) and is no longer treated like a slave (4:1-11)
      • No longer under the bondage of the Law (vv. 3-7)
      • No longer under bondage to the “elements” of the world (vv. 8-11)

The specific verse (28) under examination is part of the demonstration from Baptism, which must be understood in the context of the two statements in vv. 26 and 29:

V. 26: “For you are all sons of God through the trust [i.e. faith] in (the) Anointed Yeshua {Christ Jesus}”
V. 29: “And if you are of (the) Anointed {Christ}, then you are (the) seed of Abraham, heirs according to (the) promise [e)paggeli/a]”

The symbolism of Baptism in vv. 27-28 is introduced to illustrate/demonstrate that believers are the sons (and heirs) of God. Clearly, Paul’s use of “sons” here applies to all believers—male and female both. We could translate with inclusive language here and say “sons and daughters” or “children”, but that would distort somewhat the image he is using—that of the heir to the household, which typically would be the (eldest) son. The demonstration from Baptism has two parts:

    • V. 27—A fundamental formula indicating the believer’s new identity in Christ:
      “For as (many of) you as have been dunked [i.e. baptized] into (the) Anointed {Christ}, have sunk yourselves in(to the) Anointed {Christ} [i.e. put him on as a garment]”
    • V. 28—A (three-fold) formula expressing the essential character and nature of this identity:
      • “in (Christ) there is no Yehudean {Jew} and no Greek”
      • “in (Christ) there is no slave and no free (person)”
      • “in (Christ) there is no male and female”
    • —along with the concluding formula in 28b:
      “for you all are one in (the) Anointed Yeshua {Christ Jesus}”

The statement in v. 28b is also parallel to that in v. 26:

    • “For you are all sons of God through trust in Christ Jesus”
      “For you are all one in Christ Jesus”

It is certainly not an issue of maleness (“sons”) here—the expression “sons of God” is essentially synonymous with “one”, i.e. the unity of all believers in Christ. This is what the three-fold formula in v. 28 indicates. It is possible that Paul (or an earlier baptismal tradition) is playing on an old Jewish prayer formula, whereby the male Jew gives thanks to God that he was not created as a Gentile, slave (‘brute’) or woman (t. Ber. 7:18; b. Men. 43b; cf. Bruce, p. 187). Each of these elements is significant from the standpoint of the rhetorical context of Galatians:

    • Jew/Greek—this of course is central to the overall argument of Galatians (cf. also throughout Romans): there is no longer any ethnic or religious distinction in Christ between Jew and non-Jew (Gentile)
    • Slave/Free—Paul uses slavery/freedom imagery throughout the letter (2:4; 3:22-25; 4:1-11, 21-31; 5:1, 13), emphasizing the freedom believers have in Christ and through the Spirit; here he uses the terms in their literal/legal sense: the social distinctions of slave and free person have no meaning in Christ
    • Male/Female—as indicated above, Paul has repeatedly been using the image of son/sonship, but this is purely symbolic and illustrative: in a fundamental sense, the social/biological distinction between genders is irrelevant to the identity of believers in Christ.

Interpretation of Verse 28 (Male/Female)

How precisely does Paul intend this last point to be taken? In the case of the Jew/Greek and Slave/Free distinction, it would seem that these no longer apply even within the context of the organized life and worship of the congregation. In other words, there is no apparent restriction in terms of the roles or (religious-cultural) privileges in the Church—i.e., slave and free, Jew and Gentile, could participate in the meeting or hold leadership roles equally. But, as we saw in the earlier studies on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:33b-36, this does not seem to apply as completely to the distinction of gender. Does this reflect an inconsistency in Paul’s thought and teaching? Many commentators today think so. Perhaps Paul did not fully recognize the (logical) consequences of his statement in Gal 3:28; or, on the assumption that Galatians was written prior to 1 Corinthians (and, of course, the Pastoral letters), he may have changed or qualified his approach to the matter in the later writings (cf. Betz, p. 200). Traditional-conservative commentators are more sympathetic toward Paul, but there is still some tension between the two viewpoints: (a) there is no distinction between male and female in Christ, and yet (b) there are to remain clear distinctions in how men and women participate in the body of Christ (the Church).

Interestingly, Paul makes use of language similar to that of vv. 27-28 (referring to Baptism) elsewhere in his letters, in 1 Cor 12:13 and Col 3:11—and in both of these passages there is no mention of the male/female aspect. Since 1 Cor 12:13 is contextually relevant to the discussion of 11:2-16 and 14:33b-36, I cite it here for comparison:

“For in one Spirit we were all dunked [i.e. baptized] into one Body—even if Jews (and) even if Greeks, even if slaves (and) even if free (person)s—and we all were made to drink of one Spirit”

This could indicate that Paul was subsequently more guarded in his language, perhaps to avoid the suggestion that gender-distinction was eliminated (i.e. could be ignored/disregarded) for Christians. Indeed, a number of so-called Gnostic traditions in early Christianity seem to have emphasized this very thing. We may note, for example, the saying of Jesus in 2 Clement 12, also the (Coptic) Gospel of Thomas log. 22; the Gospel of the Egyptians 2 (in Clem. Alex. Stromateis 3.92.2); the Gospel of Philip 78, etc (cf. Betz, pp. 195-7). While such sayings and teachings were probably meant to be understood in a spiritual/symbolic (or “mystical”) sense, and were not necessarily advocating a radical social transformation, they would be scandalous enough for many believers. While it is possible that Paul wished to avoid certain extreme spiritual/gnostic implications, I believe that he actually held a rather radical view himself regarding the new religious identity which was assumed and realized by believers in Christ. This can be seen if we take seriously, not only his statements in Gal 3:27-28, but also the numerous passages which indicate that those who are in Christ are a “new creation”; cf. especially 2 Cor 5:17:

“And so if any(one) is in (the) Anointed {Christ}, he/she is a new ‘creation’ [kti/si$]: the beginning [i.e. old/earlier] (thing)s have gone along [i.e. passed away] (and) see—they have [all] become new!”

Humankind in the original creation was “male and female” (a&rsen kai\ qh=lu, Gen 1:27 LXX), the same expression Paul uses in Gal 3:28. Note that he does not say “in (Christ) there is no male and no female”, but specifically, “in (Christ) there is no male and female“, likely as a direct allusion to Gen 1:27 (cf. Bruce, p. 189). What then of the new creation? That this new identity in Christ is fundamental and must transform all aspects of human life, including gender and sexuality, seems clear—but how, and to what extent? In the earlier note on 1 Cor 11:10, I raised the possibility that this may be part of Paul’s formulation in 11:7-12; here, I further suggest the following interpretation for consideration:

    • 11:7-9: the original created order—hierarchical/vertical—man the head of woman, woman from/through man, etc
    • 11:11-12: the new (transformed) order (“new creation”)—reciprocal/horizontal—man and woman together, interconnected (and equal)

The complexity of Paul’s position is that he seeks to affirm and preserve both aspects for believers, at least within the organized (social and religious) setting of the Christian Community. Keeping this in mind may help us better understand Paul’s teaching and instruction regarding the role/position of women in the Church as expressed in his letters. I will be returning to this theme (and to Gal 3:28 specifically) in upcoming notes as part of this series. For the moment, in closing, I would state that, with regard to the apparent conflict between Gal 3:28 and the instruction involving women elsewhere in the Pauline letters, I agree wholeheartedly with F. F. Bruce, that the passages which seem to restrict the role of women “…are to be understood in relation to Gal. 3:28, and not vice versa” (Bruce, p. 190).

References marked “Bruce” above are to F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (The New International Greek Testament Commentary [NIGTC]), Eerdmans/Paternoster Press: 1982.
Those marked “Betz” are to Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians (in the Hermeneia series), ed. by Helmut Koester, Fortress Press: 1979.

Women in the Church, Part 2: 1 Cor 14:33b-36

1 Corinthians 14:33b-36

Historical & Literary Context

For an overview, see Part 1 (on 1 Cor 11:2-16). In chapter 14 Paul gives practical instruction regarding the use of believers’ spiritual “gifts” (charismata, cf. chaps. 12-13) in the worship-meeting. Indeed, we have here some of the earliest detail on how worship-meetings were organized in the New Testament period. While it is possible that the information in 1 Corinthians reflects some measure of local or regional development, there was doubtless much in common with meetings as they were held throughout the early Christian world. It clearly was what we would call a charismatic worship setting—i.e., with believers participating (speaking, etc) as the Spirit prompted them, and according to their spiritual gifting (cf. 12:4-11).

In verses 1-25, Paul deals specifically with the practice (and gift) of speaking in tongues (i.e. foreign/strange language). It would seem that some congregations in Corinth were giving undue or exaggerated importance to this phenomenon, with utterances being offered without any corresponding interpretation. Paul gives instruction with regard to this, and contrasts the practice in general with the giving of a prophetic message (in the ordinary language of the congregation); clearly he would prefer that the Corinthians’ meetings be characterized more by prophecy than by messages in a foreign language.

As noted in Part 1, in this early Christian context, ‘prophecy’ (or ‘prophesying’ [profhteu/w]) refers to an inspired utterance or (short) message in which the word and will of God was communicated to the congregation. According to 11:2-16, men and women both could preach or deliver such messages, as long as it was done within certain specific religious custom (and associated dress-code). Here in verses 26-33a, Paul urges especially that those who actively participate (taking a leading/speaking role) in the worship-meeting do so in an orderly, respectful manner. In particular, no more than two or three persons should give a prophetic message, each in turn (v. 29, 31). The speaker would be standing, while the others in the congregation were sitting. A person seated may be prompted to respond to the speaker’s message; if so, then the speaker should yield (in an appropriate way) to that person, so that a fresh revelation may be added and shared with the Community (v. 30). According to Paul, this also was a way to test and regulate the “spirit” in which a prophet spoke—i.e., by the willingness to yield and recognize another believer’s insight (v. 32). All of this is rather foreign to us today, though there are perhaps loose parallels in some of the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic churches, as well as in the traditional Quaker meeting. However, it is important to understand the religious context; otherwise, an interpretation of the verses which follow (vv. 33-36ff) is sure to be severely flawed.

On the text of 14:33b-36—A number of commentators have felt that verses 34-35 may be an interpolation, i.e. something added to the original text by an early scribe or editor, either from another letter of Paul (even another Corinthian letter) or as non-Pauline material. The textual basis for this view is that, in several manuscripts and other witnesses (D F G 88* d g Ambrosiaster etc), verse 34-35 appear in a different location (after v. 40). Such ‘floating’ text in the manuscript tradition is often indicative of a secondary addition. However, no manuscript or version is without these verses; and the textual variant most likely is the result of the feeling, by one or more scribes, that vv. 34-35 fit better following verse 40. Indeed, vv 33b-36 as a whole seem to be somewhat out of place, disrupting the flow of the passage—note how verse 37ff follows smoothly after v. 33b—though many other abrupt digressions can be found throughout Paul’s letters, and could just as well be viewed as a mark of authenticity. It is understandable that many modern commentators might regret Paul’s words and the language he uses in vv. 34-35, and wish that they were not part of the original letter.

Exegetical Notes

Here I will limit comment to several key words and phrases, in verses 34-35 especially, as it will help to focus the interpretive questions related to the passage. Earlier commentators had taken v. 33b (“As in all the congregations [e)kklhsiai] of the holy ones [i.e. saints]”) with vv. 26-33a, but it is probably better understood as introducing what follows. The phrase has a similar place (and purpose) as in the concluding statement of 11:2-16—Paul is referring to the common practice and custom of churches everywhere as a way of persuading the Corinthians to accept his instruction.

Verses 34-35:

ai( gunai=ke$ (“the women”)—as I discussed in Part 1, gunh/ (“woman”) can also mean “wife”, just as a)nh/r (“man”) can mean “husband”; even more so than in 11:2-16, Paul seems to have married women in mind here. The phrase “in the congregations [e)kklhsiai]” probably carries the specific meaning of the assembly or worship-gathering.

siga/twsan (“[they] must be silent”)—the verb siga/w has the basic meaning ‘be/keep silent, still, quiet”, sometimes with the sense of keeping something hidden or secret. Paul uses it earlier in vv. 28, 30, and this is instructive for understanding its meaning here:

    • V. 28—If a speaker wishes to give an utterance/message in a foreign language (“tongues”), but there is no one to interpret it, he ought to hold back the message and remain silent.
    • V. 30—If a revelation has been given to a person sitting (and hearing a prophetic message), and that person wishes to speak, the earlier speaker ought to yield (“be silent”) and let the revelation be heard.

e)pitre/petai (“[it] is turned [over] upon”)—the full phrase being “it is not turned over to them to speak”, which could mean either: (a) “it is not permitted for them to speak” or (b) “it is not their time/turn to speak”.

lalei=n (“to speak”)—What is the precise meaning of the verb here? The main possibilities are: (a) any sort of speaking during the meeting, (b) speaking a prophecy, (c) responding to the prophecy (v. 30), (d) speaking to her husband about what was said, or (e) inappropriate talk (chatter, etc). Based on the context, I would say that only (c) and (d) are viable options (cf. below).

u(potasse/sqwsan (“[they] must be under order”)—The verb u(pota/ssw means “put/place under an arranged order”, i.e. “put in order”. The passive/reflexive form often denotes obedience, sometimes with the harsher sense of submitting or being subject to a higher authority. Unfortunately, this more forceful (negative) connotation has been read into the context here, with the idea of the woman (or wife) being subject to the man (or husband), sometimes informed by a traditional interpretation of Gen 3:16b. A better approach is to look at other occurrences of the verb in Paul’s letters which involve a similar (or relevant) context. I would point to Romans 8:7 where Paul effectively exhorts human beings (believers) to place themselves under God’s Law (cf. also Rom 10:3, and note parallel language in Rom 13:1, 5). He also uses the verb in the context of the (hierarchical) chain which reflects the order God has established for the universe (1 Cor 15:27-28; Phil 3:21)—all things are subordinated under Christ’s authority, with Christ under God (the Father). Paul clearly includes man and woman (spec. husband and wife) as part of this (vertical) chain of relation (1 Cor 11:3, and cf. Col 3:18; Eph 5:21-24, where u(pota/ssw is used). Ultimately, one must turn to the immediate context of v. 32—

“the spirits of (the) prophets are under the order [u(pota/ssetai] of (the) prophets”

by which he means the impulse/desire to speak must function within the proper order of things in the worship-meeting, specifically in terms of when/how a prophet or (inspired) speaker should participate in turn (cf. above).

o( no/mo$ (“the Law”)—”even as the Law says”, i.e. the Old Testament Law, as expressed primarily in written form in Genesis–Deuteronomy. Does Paul have a specific Scripture in mind? That is hard to say. It is unlikely that he is referring to Gen 3:16b (cf. above), though possibly he has the Creation narrative (Gen 1-2) in view (cf. 1 Cor 11:7ff, and the discussion in Part 1). The context of the order of worship could apply to virtually anything in the (Levitical) code governing religious ritual. Note a similar combination of the “the Law (of God)” and the verb u(pota/ssw in Romans 8:7. As I have argued elsewhere, the expression “Law of God” in Paul’s letters means something more than the Old Testament (written) Law, being synonymous with the will of God.

maqei=n qe/lousin (“they wish to learn”)—”and if they wish to learn something”, i.e. regarding what has been said, the prophetic message in the meeting. For the sense of manqa/nw (“learn”), cf. its use in verse 31.

e)perwta/twsan (“they must ask/inquire upon”)—the verb often implies a serious questioning or interrogation, i.e., seeking to gain information. Paul states that the women must question “their own men/husbands” about the matter, in the house (i.e., privately, at home).

ai)sxro/n (“shame/disgrace[ful]”)—Paul’s words here, taken out of context, sound especially harsh to modern ears: “for it is (a) disgrace for women to speak in (the) congregation(al meeting) [e)n e)kklhsi/a|]”. His use of ai)sxro/$ (“shame, disgrace”), like that in 11:4-6, is related to the idea of something which violates and mars the proper order of things (established by God).

The statement in verse 36 sums up not only vv. 33ff, but the entire discussion in chapter 14. The thrust of Paul’s rhetoric here is to make the Corinthians recognize that their worship-meetings ought to conform to Christian practice and custom in general. This tone continues through vv. 37-40, culminating with his final, definitive instruction: “All things must come to be well-formed [eu)sxhmo/nw$] and (done) according to order [kata\ ta/cin]”—in conventional English we might say, “all things must be done in a proper and orderly manner”.

Interpretation

Sadly, verses 34-35 have been taken out of context and used to support the idea that women should not speak at all in the worship-meeting, or that they are not permitted to participate as public speakers/preachers in the meeting. Such a (general) view is indicated by Tertullian already in the late-2nd/early-3rd century (On Baptism, 17.3), and has persisted, in various forms, down to the present day. I would maintain, however, that it is not warranted by the context of chapter 14, and is flatly contradicted by 11:2-16. Based on the exegesis and analysis offered above, I suggest the following interpretation:

  • Verse 34 relates specifically back to the discussion in vv. 26-33a, especially the issue in v. 30—i.e., of those seated in the congregation who may be inspired to respond to the prophetic message, or to offer a fresh revelation in turn. Paul seems to be limiting this aspect of the worship-meeting to men. While women may function as speakers/preachers, giving a (prophetic) message, it is a different matter for those seated in the congregation. Possibly this instruction should be construed even more narrowly, to the wives seated with their husbands.
  • Verse 35 shifts the discussion to a slightly different situation—where a wife wants to know more about the (prophetic) message that was spoken. In such instances, she should wait and discuss it with her husband at home. It is not certain whether, or to what extent, this instruction relates to unmarried women in the congregation. Some commentators have suggested that Paul has in mind wives questioning the (prophetic) message of their own husband, but that seems to be reading a bit too much into the passage.

Paul probably includes both of these situations under the declaration in 35b, though the emphasis may be on the latter. As indicated above, the language of this statement sounds quite harsh (with the use of “shame/disgrace”), but the force and place of it, in context, should not be misconstrued.

It is extremely difficult to apply 1 Cor 14:34-35 to the worship-setting in our churches today, since it requires a high degree of religious-cultural translation, which is perilous and unwise to attempt. It is better to spend one’s effort and energy grappling with just what Paul is trying to emphasize for believers regarding the relationship between men and women, as expressed in the corporate/community worship setting. How far should gender-distinction be preserved? How should husbands and wives relate in the worship setting? What about the distinction between ‘gifted’ minister and ‘ordinary’ congregant? Who should or should not be actively speaking/participating in the meeting, and where/when/how should they do so? Are there other aspects of the modern community worship experience which more seriously threaten proper order and custom than those which Paul addresses in Corinth?