Since I began blogging last year, I’ve made a conscious choice to limit my topics to those focusing on antiquity – i.e., historical questions about emerging Christianity. But I’m branching out with this post to explore something related more to the present day, though of course there is still a historical component to the matter. I don’t think I’ll be saying anything new, but here it goes.
If my recollection is correct, there are only three places in the New Testament (NT) where there is a direct or indirect reference to Eve, the first or prototypical woman. The three NT texts are 1 Cor 11:7-13; 2 Cor 11:3; and 1 Tim 2:12-14. For this conversation we can leave out the 2 Corinthians text since it is not foundational to an actual argument being made by a biblical author – rather, Paul in that passage is merely using the Eve story as an example of what he fears might happen to Christians in Corinth. I also want to set aside the question of 1 Timothy’s authorship because, frankly, it doesn’t matter to me who wrote it (my apologies to Bart Ehrman if this disappoints him). I suppose I should also mention that I find the question of Adam and Eve’s historicity irrelevant to the topic under discussion, though I’m happy to hear dissenting opinions. Now that those preliminaries are out of the way, let’s move on…
So what do 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2 have in common? Quite a bit actually. First, both of them are attempting to address a practical question facing early Christians. Second, both passages employ the story of Adam and Eve as part of the justification for the answer given to the practical question. Third, both appeal to a specific part of the Adam and Eve account – the fact that Adam was created BEFORE Eve. Fourth, and finally, both passages raise the issue of “authority” as it relates to men and women.
Here is a summary of those components in each passage:
1. Practical Question Facing Early Christians and the Answer Given:
1 Cor 11 – Should Christian women cover their heads in worship? Answer: Yes
1 Tim 2 – Should Christian women be allowed to teach or exercise authority over a man? Answer: No
2 & 3. Use of Adam and Eve Story:
1 Cor 11 – Why should Christian women cover their heads in worship? Because man (Adam) did not originate from woman (Eve), but woman (Eve) from man (Adam), and because man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Here is the relevant piece:
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (1 Cor 11:7-10)
The important word we must not miss is the first one in verse 10 – “Therefore” (διὰ τοῦτο). This clearly indicates that the preceding verses provide the basis for the conclusion. It is because of the creation order and purpose that women are to cover their heads.
1 Tim 2 – Why should Christian women NOT be allowed to teach or have authority over a man? Because Adam was created first, not Eve, and because Eve was deceived, not Adam. Here are those verses:
11 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Tim 2:11-14)
The argument couldn’t be any more straightforward – there are two reasons offered as to why women in this church were not to teach or exercise authority over a man: 1) Eve was not created first, Adam was; and 2) Eve, not Adam, was deceived.
4. The Issue of Authority
1 Cor 11 – This is raised in verse 10; the head covering is a symbol of authority. Most English translations render it “symbol” or “sign” of authority, but in fact no word for “symbol/sign” is present in the Greek, though this is probably the intended meaning. Whatever is being said in this passage, the issue of authority, as it relates to the roles or statuses of men and women, is in the picture.
1 Tim 2 – Authority here is central in verse 12. Women are not permitted to “exercise authority over” (αὐθεντεῖν) a man, and the first reason offered for this is because “it was Adam who was created first, and then Eve” (1 Tim 2:13).
When it comes to men, women, and authority, both of these passages employ the same logic in justifying the answer given to the practical question facing the early Christians – because of what is found in the Adam and Eve story, the praxis ought to be 1) women cover their heads in worship; and 2) women do not teach or exercise authority over a man.
This leads me to my conclusion. For Christians today who consider the Bible relevant for how to conduct themselves, it seems that there are three options for how to view these two very similar passages.
Option #1 – Consider the instructions of both passages as the normative pattern for Christians today, which simply means that Christian women should ALWAYS cover their heads in worship and should NEVER teach or have authority over a man. This would be a consistent reading and interpretation of the two texts.
Option #2 – Consider the instructions of both passages as a reflection of the contexts in which they were written (or something similar), but choose not to receive them as the normative pattern for Christians in all times and places. This means that neither instruction – head coverings on women and their not being allowed to teach or exercise authority over a man – would need to be the pattern for Christians in any given time and place.
Option #3 – Consider the instructions of one passage as a reflection of the context in which it was written, but consider the other passage as the normative pattern for Christians in all times and places. Thus, require head coverings on women but allow them to teach/exercise authority, or do not require head coverings on women but forbid them teach/exercise authority.
To me, options #1 and #2 would be consistent – both approaches treat the two texts in the same manner. However, option #3, in my estimation, appears inconsistent. I do not see anything in either passage that would justify a different hermeneutic in one of them. Whatever Christians decide to do with one of these texts, it would seem they should also do with the other one. Yet it seems that many do, in fact, follow option #3.
What justification is there for this choice? Have I missed an important element that would distinguish these two texts?
From my observation of the evangelical groups of whom I have been part, option #2 is not legitimate, therefore alternative #3 is “putting on airs” as a way to assuage the guilt from not following #1. There is no rational hermeneutical principle that will allow such a conclusion, but it is the closest available that is palatable when trying to wed scripture with culture.
Your exegesis is quite rational, and I am fully convinced that option #1 is the most correct application.
I’ve only started lurking here recently, thrilled to find a site that discussed questions of Christian antiquity from a scholarly point of view. Then you write this. Whatever could have possessed you? I can take heart from your introduction that you won’t do this too often.
Are you seriously interested in how modern Christians could better live their modern lives in accordance with the rules set forth by Paul? THAT would be an interesting discussion, particularly with regard to marriage and divorce. But for reasons you haven’t explained, you’ve decided to focus on a few matters related to equality of the sexes.
You’ve decided (expressly) to ignore any question of the authorship of Timothy and (it appears) to avoid any discussion of the interpolation of the text you cite from 1st Corinthians. So … as a result you may be defeating your own purpose (if indeed I understand your purpose), which is to derive rules for modern times based on the rules in place during the life of Paul. Instead, you may be deriving your rules from how authors after Paul’s death decided to reframe Paul’s description of practices during his lifetime.
Also, and I find this curious, you’ve decided to focus only on those passages in Paul that refer directly or indirectly to Eve. THAT’s going to give you a certain perspective on the matter, don’t you think? You don’t have to consider here Paul’s statement that in Jesus there is no male or female, which would lead one to question the relevancy of your inquiry. More specifically, you don’t have to question how Paul could have prohibited women to exercise authority over men when he also pronounced Phoebe to be a bishop. Instead, you get to focus solely on the single story in the Bible that has been interpreted (or misinterpreted) most often to justify male superiority and privilege. And given this focus, you have reached conclusions that (not surprisingly) tend to uphold this privilege. To me, it appears that you’ve discovered in the end what you intended to discover from the outset. Of course, I cannot know your true intent, but your method is so odd, I don’t know what else to conclude.
Then strangest of all, you toss out the window Paul’s reference to Eve in 2nd Corinthians, saying it’s not foundational to an actual argument, whatever that means. Well, whatever is is that you think Paul is saying about Eve to the Corinthians, he IS addressing the entire community there, men and women. Focusing for the moment on the Corinthian men, he’s saying that he’s afraid the Corinthian men can be misled just like Eve was misled. If Eve’s example is only relevant to women, why would Paul have said this? And why would you possibly dismiss this text as not relevant to your inquiry?
My final point is that you have decided not to consider Paul’s words in light of any kind of larger social or religious context. You certainly know that head coverings have long been part of Jewish practice. We can discuss what the practices were in Paul’s time, but there is a long-standing Jewish tradition that Jewish men wear a head covering (Kippa, Yalmulke) at all times, and that married Jewish women cover their hair at certain times. We also know that the Jewish head priest wore a head covering. So, the idea that a head covering would be symbolic of female submissiveness to males doesn’t jibe with anything we know about Paul’s Jewish context. All we can determine from Paul’s historic context is that a head covering was a symbol of authority of one man over another (priests wore them), and that the symbol was associated with men. Why in the world would Paul have turned this on his head (so to speak) and transformed the head covering into a sign of submissiveness of one man (in this case, a woman) to another? If what you’re trying to figure out is how modern Christians could live more like Paul lived, wouldn’t this question be relevant?
I’m reasonably confident I’m not telling you anything you don’t know better than I do. I bring up these matters as a way of asking: what in the world are you trying to say?
Steve – Thanks for sharing that. I’ve had similar experiences to your own.
Larry – I’ll reply to your last question by simply repeating what I stated originally in my conclusion:
“To me, options #1 and #2 would be consistent – both approaches treat the two texts in the same manner. However, option #3, in my estimation, appears inconsistent. I do not see anything in either passage that would justify a different hermeneutic in one of them. Whatever Christians decide to do with one of these texts, it would seem they should also do with the other one. Yet it seems that many do, in fact, follow option #3.”
I’m not sure how I could state what I’m “trying to say” any differently than that. Are you saying that you think there are options other than the three I offered? If so, I’m happy to hear them.
I can be obtuse. Are you essentially arguing for option #2?
You’ve made a number of argumentative choices that I find odd, and one or two that I find bizarre. Putting your arguments to one side, I cannot conceive of an argument for head covering that I can reconcile with my outsider’s understanding of Christianity. But your argument might boil down to this: based on a selection of the two most anti-feminist texts in the New Testament, head covering and subordination of women are equally important, so you can choose both or neither.
But what if the response is to choose both? If you’re OK with that, then I have an argument. If your response would be further argument that both is not a legitimate choice, then I’m done for the day.
Larry – Don’t consider yourself obtuse here. No worries.
I’m not so much arguing FOR something as I am arguing AGAINST option #3. I think I’d need to say a lot more to make an argument FOR my position, which is some form of option #2. My goal wasn’t to choose the “most anti-feminist texts” in the NT. Rather, I chose the only passage that forbids women to teach and have authority over men. So if 1 Tim 2 is the only justification for women not teaching or having authority over men (among some Christians today), I think it’s fair to look at the other NT passage that most closely resembles it (1 Cor 11). When we do this, we find what appears to me to be an inconsistency in the way the 1 Cor 11 text is handled by some Christians today.
Is it coincidental that Eve appears in these two passages? I tend to think not, and this is mainly because the same logic is used by the writers to justify the prescribed praxis. I think many Christians and Jews of the first century (and today) viewed the Adam and Eve story as the prime example of male authority over women. So when related practical questions arose among them, it’s only natural to expect to find that story being employed.
I don’t think you can box up all the options into 1), 2), 3)… Perhaps the very mention of Adam and Eve should bring to mind the context of marriage between a man and a woman? There’s this option, as well as Christians desire to follow the “spirit” of biblical teaching, with the symbols being mere outward expressions. I could probably write much more, but need to go back to work…
Thanks for the great post. For my two cents, I think you have laid out the issue with a lot of clarity. I am the choir though.
Larry, I think a lot of your arguments might come into play in a discussion which assumes option #2 – viz. what was contextually at play in these injunctions which essentially makes them (at least in a direct way) inapplicable to 21st Century Christianity?
Also, I suspect Dr. Henderson chose to focus on these “two most anti-feminist texts” for the very reason of pointing out problems in gender and modern Christianity. I think an apt conclusion is not necessarily that wearing head coverings and not teaching are equally important, but rather that they have parallel reliance on the original historical context. This gets at the hermeneutical-theological issue at stake as I see it – how do we deal with that contextuality?
Ross, obviously I’m not the choir. So, the discussion is about problems with gender and modern Christianity? I’m game. What is the problem, or what are the problems? Are we trying to address the question of whether women should be subservient to men in church? (If the issue is modern Christianity, then my guess is that no one much cares about head coverings.)
If this is our discussion, then it must be Dr. Henderson’s intent to refer to Paul to add to this discussion. Please forgive me, my natural assumption is that Dr. Henderson is doing this to see what Paul has to say on this topic: is Paul pro-subservience, or anti-subservience, or does Paul have a more nuanced position? Dr. Henderson then went on to cite the two most pro-subservient texts I could find, which I found to be an odd choice, as he gave me no explanation for his choice other than these texts cited Eve (and he dropped a third text citing Eve that I found far more interesting than the first two, but you can’t have everything).
Now as I’ve admitted, I may have initially misunderstood. It may well have been Dr. Henderson’s intention not to inquire what Paul had to say about female subservience, but instead to examine an argument commonly used to justify female subservience. The latter possibility would better explain why Dr. Henderson chose to examine these two pieces of text. But Dr. Henderson has not told me that this was his intent; he’s stated rather plainly that he said what he meant to say.
I get that Dr. Henderson is saying that subservience of women in church derives some of its authority from the same texts that require head coverings. What is the significance of this? The argument seems to be based on a requirement of consistency. If so, isn’t the easy rebuttal the one you made in your comment, that the two matters are not equally important? Paul’s letters do not set forth legal requirements, they are written in a context where faith trumps law, and perhaps one where law is interpreted to serve faith (don’t quote me on that one, Paul’s use of the law is not something I’d care to argue!). In that case, we have to consider the context of modern Christianity, where no one’s faith is going to be shaken by a woman’s uncovered head, but where women exercising authority gives some people problems.
If the issue has to do with reliance on historical context, then why discuss only these two passages? These passages are not even representative of Paul as a whole, let alone the historical context. The historical context of early Christianity shows a surprising amount of power and authority wielded by women — perhaps such a surprising amount that a later generation of Christians found this power embarassing, perhaps to the point that the two pieces of text analyzed here were extrapolated into Paul’s original letters. So I don’t think we’re discussing historical context here, or else we’re doing it in a way I can’t recognize.
In any event, I’m thoroughly confused. Maybe you got it right when you said you were a member of the choir, meaning I suppose that you’re a Christian who sees these matters in a way that’s similar to Dr. Henderson. I may be the latter, but I’m not the former, and it could simply be the case that this site is based on an unstated set of assumptions and attitudes that I don’t share.
I had a teacher once who summed up the problem with being a Jew interested in Christianity: the Christians won’t talk to you and the Jews don’t care! ; ^ ) Just kidding.
Tim, is there a way to assess, independent of the Scriptures, whether or not “head coverings” were perceived by first century Jews/Greeks as a culturally normative expression of authority (or a recognition of roles)?
Could we assess the same thing (again, outside of the Scriptures) about gender roles in teaching?
If so (and I’m thinking it’s a good-sized if), then might we look to today for similarly culturally normative expressions of authority (or role recognition) and see if they could be adapted to life in the church? I would think that ever since we’ve had women as college professors and corporate trainers that teaching is no longer a culturally normative gender-specific role. In the same way, ever since men stopped wearing hats in the 1960s (ex: Jack Kennedy), headwear similarly has lost this kind of gender-specific meaning. Who has a hat to “tip” to the ladies anymore?
However, there may be other gender-based symbols of authority and role that might be normative in our present culture (although I’ll wager they are harder to find). If we can find them, could we adapt Paul’s principle to the modern world by using a different symbolism?
Bill, I summed up the little I know about Jewish practice at the time of Paul. The short answer is that the requirements for male head covering and female hair covering date to Rabbinic times, but we don’t know if they date back as far as Paul. The Greco-Roman practice was different, at least according to my Oxford Bible notes: men had short hair and women long hair commonly braided or wound up on their heads. The Oxford Bible states that the 1 Cor. reference to female head covering may have to do with hairstyle and not head covering; the requirement may have been not to let hair loose, or down. This might make sense (again according to Oxford), as Greco-Roman women would let their hair loose only for certain (presumably pagan) religious rites.
If you’re looking for a more relevant context, you might look back to Judaism, where the practice of women covering their hair appears to have been equal parts modesty and a public sign (much like a wedding ring) that the woman in question was spoken for. So … require married women in churches to wear modest wedding rings? Sorry. Better might be a general concern for modest dress and comportment in general, which could be applied equally to men and women in the spirit of our age.
Bill – There really is very little evidence to answer your first question. Some have claimed that Romans and Jews prayed with their heads covered, while Greeks prayed with them uncovered. But others say that’s an oversimplification or point out that some of the evidence is from after the first century.
About women teaching men, it was rare but not unheard of. I know the rabbinic literature includes a couple such examples. Then, of course, there is Priscilla teaching Apollos in Acts 18:24-26, though some claim that was not “formal” teaching.
I’m not quite catching the sense of your final question. What is the “principle” to which you’re referring when you say “Paul’s principle”?
Paul appeals to a gender-based authority principle, based on order of creation. I’m asking what other symbols of gender-based role authority are there today that might serve his point better than those of headwear and teaching?
Tim, responding to you here as I can’t above. Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate that the Adam and Eve story will be drawn upon by both Christianity and Judaism when the topic of gender differences comes up. But because Jews don’t believe in original sin, the story may be viewed differently in Judaism, as less of a justification for patriarchy and more as an explanation for how it arose. I don’t see how dominance follows order of creation; if order of creation mattered, people would be subordinate to trees. God’s curse of Eve only says that she must be subordinate to her husband, and who is to say that a curse describes the ideal state of things? If the curse represents the way things should be, then shouldn’t we prohibit epidurals during childbirth?
I’ve read Josephus on Adam and Eve, which strikes me as allegorical in the extreme.
But I digress. Thanks for explaining where you’re coming from.
Bill – I can’t think of any “gender-based role authority” symbols in our society today, mainly because I think our society over the past several decades has generally rejected the whole notion of “gender-based role authority.” I think that’s the crux of the issue. The culture in which Paul wrote had such a norm, whereas ours (21st-century USA) does not. So, then, the question becomes whether Christians should/must be “counter-cultural” in this area or not. Did any such symbols come to your mind? I think there are generally accepted symbols of gender ROLES today (e.g., clothing), but not really any symbols of gender AUTHORITY, unless we look into particular sub-groups.
Larry,
You mentioned interpolation as a problem with the 1 Cor 11 passage. I think you’ve confused that with another passage which is not part of the discussion at all–1 Cor 14:34-35.
In defense of Options #2 and #3, I would state that there seems to be a principle in Scripture that really important things are mentioned several times. For instance, there are several references to the Ten Commandments in each Testament (although they are only fully listed twice). The fact that the Fourth Commandment is never mentioned positively in the New Testament is taken as tacit admission that adherence to it was no longer important. So, taking–as Tim said–two passages in which the doctrine being postulated is not taught anywhere else in the Bible would appear to signify that the doctrine, while important to the original audience, expired unless it was explicitly renewed. Thus the support for Option #2.
But if we look at the broader teaching of Scripture, we do not find anything unique about Paul’s prohibition of women teaching men. Even leaving aside 14:34-35, we see leadership positions in Scripture specifically calling for men to fill them, with any case in which a woman led (Deborah and Gael) being notable as an exception. We could even add Phoebe to this listo, although it’s not certain that she led in any other way than as a patron and servant. There’s absolutely no evidence that Paul or anyone else ever ordained her to anything.
So in this way the two prohibitions–1)women p&p without anything down over their heads; 2)women taking authority over or teaching men–don’t stand on the same ground. Thus the evidence for option #3, ignoring what seems to be a minor issue and emphasizing what finds support throughout Scripture.
I myself am a firm proponent, however, of the other option.
White Man, my understanding is that some experts also consider 1 Cor 11:3-16 to be an interpolation. I’ve just grabbed my Oxford Annotated Bible because it is handy — their footnote reads: “Because 11.3-16 interrupts an otherwise easy movement from 11.2 to 11.17-18, and because the vocabulary and content of the passage are strange for Paul, but resemble those of deutero-Pauline letters such as Colossians, Ephesians, and 1-2 Timothy, it may be a later interpolation.”
I thing it’s a good idea to carefully distinguish between rules set forth in scripture, and where scripture merely describes a practice. The Bible was written during a period and in places where patriarchy dominated, so we should expect to see men exercising most of the authority in the Bible stories. This doesn’t mean that men were required to fill these roles, or that women were forbidden to exercise this authority. Of course, the distinction between rules and practice cuts both ways: the fact that someone like Phoebe might have exercised authority over men is no proof that such exercise was widely tolerated or even that the early Church might not have had rules against women in authority. Sometimes it can be politic to ignore a local violation of the rules.
In any event, a discussion of the role of women in the early Church is a complicated one, and a controversial one. I’d only intended to make a more limited point, which is that there are provisions in the writings of Paul that can be read as tolerating female authority in the Church.
There’s much more to your comment. Your thoughts about how to interpret repetition, major versus minor points in the text, etc., are all very interesting. I confess to knowing little to nothing about different Christian traditions of biblical exegesis — that’s part of what I hope to learn by lurking around here.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Pingback: Women, Teaching, Headcoverings and Consistent Interpretation « Ross Jahnke
Tim, thanks for this; as an earlier commenter says, you set the logic out with clarity. I would only offer two qualifications:
1. The interpretive process does not always admit to such logic, in that if we are asking ‘What principle is Paul concerned with that works out with these practical results?’ it could be possible that in one scenario, following his principle also means following his practice, whilst in another it does not.
2. I think the third mention of Eve is important, since Paul clearly sees Eve’s example as relevant for both men and women (just as Adam’s is elsewhere) which undermines the idea that the use of Eve in 1 Tim 2 implies women are more corruptible than men.
I have explored these passages in some depth on my blog here http://www.psephizo.com/?p=144 and here http://www.psephizo.com/?p=784 which show there are other, multiple problems with your option iii
Pingback: Elsewhere (05.09.2011) « Near Emmaus
Pingback: More to Read (05.13.2011) « The Western Seminary Blog
What if the author(s) of Corintians and Timothy Is grounding his teaching in the cultural practice of primogeniture (Adam is created before Eve = inherent male authority)? Furthermore, what if this culturl practice is bound up with life in the ancient world and no longer applicable or even helfpful in the modern world? Primogeniture was more of a divine accommodation. If this is the case then the legs would be knocked out right under the commands for head coverings and female submission. And this is what William Webb argues for in SW&H.
Thoughts?
this is an interesting idea, though the problem with that is that primogeniture appears not to be in sight in Genesis, and neither is it clear that ‘authority’ is the issue at stake in either letter, since (as Philip Payne argues convincingly) ‘head’ means ‘origin of’ or ‘source of life’ and the issue in 1 Tim is (for both men and women) learning in quietness without disputing, rather than authority as such.
Hello! there is one big difference in the two texts cited mainly this… (picking up in 1 CO. 11 where the citing left off…)
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves : is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair , it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair , it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. 17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
So the covering is the woman’s hair apparently, in verse 6 Paul says “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 .”
So it seems he is relating the two, furthermore note further down the text here verse 16
“16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”
Paul’s main focus often was church unity and he would not get too bent out of shape over the smaller things such as the superficial act of covering or not. In Colossians 2 Paul writes:
“20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances , 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.”
So Paul’s deeper concern for purity is that which is within and not that which is on the out.
Furthermore noting that the reason for the strict direction taken in 1 tim 2 on women not being allowed to teach nor to have authority over men this is straight from God in regards to authority specifically also considering that whomever is teaching is the one in authority as well, but in Genesis 3 i believe we all will remember when the Lord said to Eve (going back to the original account in question during this discussion) her desire will be for man but man will rule over her.
WIth that in consideration we see why Paul took the stance he did, to be firm in regard to authority and leadership and to not be so caught up on the superficial things of head coverings. I hope this helped! keep on digging in the word there’s answers!
SIncerely in Christ,
John Joseph Scelsi
I agree with you here in your first point John, and this accords with what Paul says in Romans 2 about the one who receives God’s praise is a Jew on the inside, not on the outside. But I think you are mistaken on 1 Tim 2, since it is well established that ‘authentein’ does not mean ‘to exercise authority’ in a neutral sense.
Also, I am not sure why you are using an archaic Bible translation..
Pingback: My Most Popular Posts of 2011 | Earliest Christianity
Thanks for re-posting this as your most-read commentary of 2011. Perhaps the best way to determine which of the three options prevails is by reference to I Timothy 2 as a stand-alone passage. Rather than start at verse 12 (or better yet verse 11), go back to 8-10 which provides a parallel directive regarding a woman’s proper attire, only in I Timothy it relates to jewelry and hair style rather than hair covering as in I Corinthians 11.
The fact that both the directives about personal adornment and submission are written in equally forceful language (one sentence after the other) makes an argument for Option 3 fairly tenuous. The intensity of Paul (or the writer’s request) could easily lead even a modern reader to conclude the Option 1 is the only logical conclusion — as a normative statement intended for all times and all occasions. However, this is undone by Paul’s use of the phrases “I desire” and “I permit” as lead-ins to both arguments. This suggests that the request reflects more a Pauline preference (albeit strongly held) rather than a divinely ordained imperative. Hence Option 2, a contextual view wins out as most supportable. This was Paul’s preference at this time and for followers of the way in this particular city, Ephesus.