The Puritan Utopia and John Winthrop

The following post was an exam essay for my class on American Church History:



The Puritans came to America and developed a utopian society that did not last very long. They quickly came across some tensions. Their basic ideals, evident in John Winthrop’s sermon, were challenged early on. The Puritans, although short lived, did provide the American Church with a legacy that focused on a high sense of morality.

In order to understand the Puritans, we should take a look at their reason for coming to America, their view on education and the effect it had on them, and their religious views. The Puritans sought a total reform of life (Noll, 42). They came to America for the reason that they thought they could achieve total reform (Noll, 42). The Puritans came to America after the English made their settlement there, along with the Pilgrims. They came to the Massachusetts Bay area, north of the Pilgrims, who settled in the Virginia area. They came in 1630 and were the largest English group to come; seven hundred colonists arrived in 11 vessels.

They had a high view of education. It was from the Puritan group that the first university came—Harvard. The Puritans made education a very important thing, requiring that there be a teacher for every 50 people (Noll, 44). As a result of their view of education, the area that they settled became “one of the world’s most literate places by the end of the century” (Noll, 44). What were their religious views like?

Their religious perspective was fixed on the Old Testament covenant. They believed themselves to be elected by God, which served as a social adhesive for the community. They focused on sermons; they had two—one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and each of them were two hours long and were in the plain style. The heart of the Puritans was their weekly gatherings (Noll, 45). There they chanted the Psalms in worship houses. The buildings themselves were plain rectangular meetinghouses at the village green. These meetinghouses were the centrally located being built at the village green, and they were also the largest buildings in the villages (Noll, 45). At the heart of their worship was the sermon (Noll, 45). The content of the sermons were quite constant: “individuals are sinners who need divine salvation; God has provided that salvation by grace, from his mercy alone; saved sinners now have the right and privilege to serve God by following his law” (Noll, 46).

And how did their public lives interact with their religious views? Their public lives were tied together with their religious practices (Noll, 42). They were quite restrictive when practicing religion. They did not celebrate holidays. They were “nervous about the use of pictures, drama, and decorations in church” (Noll, 44). What did they value? They were a religious group deeply devoted to the community, brought together by a basic set of beliefs and core ideals. Essentially, they were a utopian society.

The Puritans had four main beliefs. One, they perceived that a personal conversion experience was very important. Personal conversion was so important that it became a requirement for full church membership among the Puritans (Noll, 42). Two, the Puritans placed great importance on private devotional practices. Three, they were very much in favor of Bible reading. Four, the Puritans listened to sermons and thought them to be important. The Puritans, in addition to their religious beliefs, maintained three fundamental elements to their faith and presence in the new land. First, they held to a covenant with God. Second, they held to a community of believers. Third, the Puritans thought that they were a City Upon a Hill. They thought that the old world would look at them in the new world and they would be examples to them. These three fundamental elements are evident in John Winthrop’s sermon, “A Model of Christian Charity,” which he delivered when the Puritans arrived to Massachusetts.

Winthrop’s sermon rests on four main points. One, the persons involved in the Puritan group. Two, the work of the Puritan group. Three, the Puritan’s view on the end. Four, the means for the Puritans to reach the end. The first point deals with the Puritans as a community of believers that came together under the common perception that they all had fixed their attention on—the covenant with God. They were focused on the community and not on the individual, and as a community they were focused on the covenant with God. Winthrop said that the care of the community took precedence over the individual (p. 27, the first I.2ly). They were together, as seen in his third point, working towards serving the Lord. They were seeking to make their lives better by preserving themselves from the common corruptions that come from the world. As seen in his fourth point, they were setting out to make Christian practices the standard way of life for every person in the community. They were seeking to please God—who is jealous—so as to avoid punishment. They saw themselves as the vessel for which the world would be sanctified in the Lord when it came into contact with them. They also focused on God’s judgment that came onto those who failed the mission He gave to them. They felt that God gave them a mission to be a City Upon a Hill, and if they failed their mission they would be punished (cf. p. 28).

The Puritan community began to see some difficulties, however. Their utopia was quickly challenged by several factors. Declension was a problem for the community. Their utopian society was not working; with people backsliding, the vision became in jeopardy, for God, according to their view, was likely to strip them of His support and punish them. Furthermore, three people help to reveal the threats that the Puritans faced.

Roger Williams wanted separation of church and state. As a result, he was kicked out of the Puritan settlement in 1636. The Puritans had a combination of church and state, where the leaders looked to the clergy for aid. When Williams got kicked out, he settled in Rhode Island and established an environment in which people can live and worship freely. He also respected the Indians and wanted to know how to evangelize to them. Anne Hutchinson was a midwife who got into religious conversations. She elaborated on sermons, believing herself to have a personal connection with God outside of the Bible. The Puritans put her on trial. As a result, she got banished from the settlement in 1638 and was later killed by Indians. Thomas Hooker was a minister who defied the Massachusetts government and was banished. He developed the area that later became Connecticut.
The Salem Witch trials did not help the utopian cause, either. The level of witchcraft in the area outside of Boston put the people in a very suspicious mood. They went so far as to try and execute 20 individuals (Noll, 51). These executions underscored the present tension in the utopia. Things were not going as anticipated.

Winthrop’s sermon helps us to understand these tensions. The Puritans thought themselves to be a community under a divine calling. They were together functioning in service to the Lord. When a few of them begin to think separate from the group, such as Hutchinson, the communal unity is put into jeopardy. When a few backslide, the group is thought to be subject to divine punishment, or even displacement. When they seek to separate the church from the state, the purpose of being a city on a hill cannot be maintained. The three elements fundamental for the Puritans—covenant, community, and a city on a hill—were challenged rather quickly in their history. Winthrop’s sermon highlight these elements, and the tensions that later arose demonstrate the reality that the elements were being compromised early on, so that the Puritan utopia would not last.

The Puritan legacy is found in the idea as the country being a City Upon a Hill. The idea that this country is an example for the rest of the nations to follow is taken from John Winthrop’s sermon and the Puritan perspective. This idea was directly related to their high sense of morality. Their fervor for morality was also carried throughout the country, especially in the First and Second Great Awakenings and the moral reforms that came later.

The Puritan society was a utopia that came under tension rather quickly. Their beliefs and ideals, as represented in Winthrop’s sermon, were challenged early and they never recovered from them. However, their belief in the City Upon a Hill has stuck with the country. Although short lived, their legacy has been long lasting.

--------------

Noll, Mark. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992.

Winthrop, John. "A Model of Christian Charitie." American Sermons: The Pilgrims to Martin Luther King, Jr. Michael Warner, ed. New York: The Library of America, 1999.

America, The Great Awakenings, and the American Church

The following post was an exam essay for my American Church History class:



The First and Second Great Awakenings dramatically altered the religious landscape of the United States. It prepared the way for a religious tolerance that had not yet been seen in the new land. We will briefly describe the more important events and details of the two revivals and explain why they are important. We will briefly examine how they changed the church. We will see how the revivals reflected or responded to the broader context of American society and culture. We will also question whether or not they were the most important events in the history of the American Church up until the Civil War. To the more important events of the First and Second Great Awakenings we now turn.

The First Great Awakening was first sparked by Jonathan Edwards, a puritan pastor in West Massachusetts at a North Hampton Congregational Church. Although he was most famous for his sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, he focused more on theological treatises, one of which, A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, perceives that Christianity is not about outward displays of spirituality but about the inward reality of the heart as a result of Christ’s work and God’s love (Noll, 96). This inward reality, a personal conversion experience, is important, for it provides the basis for denominational change and for moral change in the people.

Following Edwards was George Whitefield, the chief generating force of the First Great Awakening. He was an amazing orator. Ben Franklin spoke highly of his ability to speak to the crowd. Whitefield went from Georgia to New England, preaching everywhere he went. Denied pulpits, he would speak in barns or open fields. He passed these practices on to John and Charles Wesley, which later became part of the Methodist way of doing things (Noll, 91). He was Episcopalian. Thousands came to see him speak, and many converted. In the fall of 1740, upwards of 8,000 people attended his sermons everyday for nearly a month (Noll, 91). He is important because he changed American history, not simply American Church history, by speaking all over the East Coast, converting a multitude of people, thus helping to cause Church growth in the colonies. This growth later became important for moral reform as many people in the colonies became saved and became Protestants.

As a result of the First Great Awakening, the American Church was beginning to see some changes. After the 1770s, Baptists became the third most popular church denomination, passing the Anglicans. The American Church became split into two groups—the Old Lights (traditional clerics) and New Lights (Whitefield supporters and others). An increasing number of people were “making personal profession[s] of their faith and joining a church” (Noll, 97). There were five ways that the First Great Awakening impacted American Church history.

First, revivals started a decline in the influence of old churches—Quakers, Anglicans, and Congregationalists—and in turn the number of Baptists and Presbyterians after 1740 increased. Second, the revivals stimulated the founding of new colleges. Third, the revivals drew many Native Americans and African Americans to Protestantism for the first time. Fourth, the revivals gave women added prominence in colonial religion. Fifth, the revivals fostered religious tolerance by blurring theological differences among New Lights; emphasis was on inner experience rather than dogmatic fine points.

The Second Great Awakening mostly occurred out on the Frontier. The revival started in the 1790s in Connecticut, but it spread out to the Frontier. It largely focused on the Second Coming of Christ, which required repentance of the hearers. In 1801 in Kentucky, men and women were reported to roll around like logs, they jerked their heads, and made animal noises, thus demonstrating spiritual manifestation of what they felt they were experiencing. They were concerned with a personal conversion experience that was manifested in the physical reality. The Second Great Awakening was influenced by the idea of the Jacksonian Democracy and the Market Revolution. It involved circuit riders, such as Francis Asbury. It involved all denominations. One of the products to emerge out of the Second Great Awakening was the “anxious seat”—a bench for ready converts to be prayed for. One of the basic premises of this revival was that sin was a voluntary act, and therefore people could live a life free from sin. It emphasized the role of women, encouraging them to give public testimonials. Women were even involved in this revival as itinerate preachers who traveled up and down the coast. The involvement was important because it later led to the movement for women’s rights. The Second Great Awakening welcomed slaves and invited blacks to preach. It was often directly challenging the practice of slavery. The involvement of slaves was important because it later led to the movement against slavery. However, due to the influence of Jacksonian Democracy, limits of equality were set into place, which eventually limited race and gender, leading to the justification of slavery and women’s subordination. The Second Great Awakening first justified slavery, but as later movements of reform came from leaders who came out of the revival, it was later abolished.

The First and Second Great Awakenings were influenced by their surrounding cultures. The Second Great Awakening especially was influenced by culture. The Market Revolution—the push towards materialism and the market—gave a strong desire for the Church to lead moral reform. As a result, the Second Great Awakening can be seen as a response to the Market Revolution. And as the Jacksonian Democracy idea became prevalent. The common man was the focus of the Jacksonian Democracy; the common man was also the focus of the Second Great Awakening. As a result, the Second Great Awakening can be seen as influenced by or reflecting the Jacksonian Democracy.

Leading up to the Civil War, the First and Second Great Awakenings could be argued as the most important events in the history of the American Church. The revivals caused the decline of the Puritans and Anglicans and the rise of the Baptists and Presbyterians. With the rise of the Baptists in the South, social equality was being demanded, which did not suit well with the wealthy plantation owners (Noll, 101). The Great Awakenings provided the basis for social and moral reform that would come later, and were therefore very important not only for the Church but also for the country. But the Great Awakenings were America’s first true national events (Noll, 110). The revivals were the talk of the clergy throughout North America (Noll, 110). The revivals ended up “. . . linking larger and larger sections of the continent” (Noll, 111). The First and Second Great Awakenings also helped to influence church leadership. Coming out of the revivals came a model of leadership that encouraged the common people to rely no longer on clergy to perform religious duties, but instead, to do them for themselves (Noll, 112).

The First and Second Great Awakenings left a huge impact on the American Church. It changed the way religion functioned. It changed the way Christians thought about religion. It was the first national event, which is also why the revivals can be argued to be the most important events in the history of the American Church before the Civil War. They were both a reflection and a response to the culture, but their own effects were felt long after they occurred. They helped pave the way for later social and moral reform. The Great Awakenings were very important for the American Church and for the country.

-------------

Noll, Mark. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1992.

The Author of the Pastorals Was Someone Other Than Paul

The following is a paper I am submitting for my New Testament: Acts - Revelation final.



Does Paul in 1 Timothy 2 prohibit women from preaching at the pulpit? In answering this question, it is sometimes stated that Paul was not the author of the pastorals, which includes 1 Timothy, and as a result, the difficult statements therein have little or no binding authority. In the issue of authorship, Christians have split into opposing camps, sometimes declaring opponents to be uncommitted to the authority of Scripture. Indeed, there is a camp of scholars who do not believe that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. For the other camp Paul is certainly the author. What are the arguments for and against Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles? Although Paul is identified to be the author at the beginning of each of the Pastoral Epistles, some scholars look at other pieces of evidence from throughout the letters as a whole and determine that they are not genuinely from Paul but from someone else. Others find a way to explain how Paul is in fact the author of these epistles in keeping with the Pauline attribution at their beginnings. We will explore the various arguments against Pauline authorship and allow arguments in favor of Pauline authorship to interact with them. However, in the end we must ask ourselves what we can make of the situation by asking ourselves if the question of authorship is as important as we have made it out to be.

Someone Other Than Paul as the Author of the Pastoral Epistles

There are two kinds of arguments that maintain Paul was not the author or sole author of the Pastoral Epistles. The pseudonymous arguments maintain for various reasons that someone other than Paul wrote the pastorals using his name. The fragment theory argument maintains that there was a collection of personal correspondences of Paul that were used to create the pastorals. These fragments of the personal letters were augmented and adapted to a new letter to meet the needs of a particular situation. But Paul was not the direct author of the actual Pastoral Epistles as we know them today. Let us look at these two types of arguments that maintain someone other than Paul as the author of the Pastoral Epistles.

The Pseudonymous Arguments

As a whole, the pseudonymous hypothesis assumes several ideas dealing with accepted practices, stylistic differences, and historical features. First, pseudonymous hypotheses assume pseudonymity was an accepted practice during the late first and early second centuries. Second, it assumes stylistic differences can be attributed to different authors other than Paul. And third, it assumes historical features present in the pastorals are post-Pauline. These three ideas in general result in the argument that Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, but rather a pseudonymous writer who perhaps knew Paul wrote them instead.*1* We will look closely at some of the popular arguments from the pseudonymous vein, such as those that focus on post-Pauline Gnosticism, the Pauline school of theology and literary style, Paul’s activities as reported in Acts, and other details and considerations.

Gnosticism is thought very strongly by many scholars to be the heresy addressed in the Pastoral Epistles. Gnosticism was a post-Pauline development. Therefore, these scholars argue that the pastorals were post-Pauline. In other words, Paul did not write them, because the heresy addressed did not come until after Paul’s death. Someone else wrote the pastorals and put Paul’s name to them, a practice known as pseudonymous writing.*2* Many scholars who argue for this understanding suggest that the pastorals were written around the late first or early second centuries, in order to revive Pauline teaching and to provide the definitive method for denouncing Gnosticism.*3* However, Gnosticism as a systematic religion came after Paul’s death, but its thoughts and ideas as an informal structure were present during the latter half of the First Century A.D.; it is likely that Paul was familiar with these informal ideas and to have addressed them when writing the pastorals.*4* Furthermore, statements in the pastorals indicate the author was dealing with a prominent Jewish element of heresy. These statements refer to circumcision, Jewish myths, and law disputes, as in Titus 1:10, 14; 3:9. These require a broader understanding of Gnosticism as the heresy being addressed. There is plenty of evidence that indicates the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles was mixed. This Gnosticism apparently attached itself to some parts of Judaism, whereas the Gnosticism of the Second Century A.D. was opposed to the features of Judaism with one exception, the Jewish cosmology. If the Gnosticism addressed was an early one that was mixed with Judaism, much like what we find in Colossians, then an early date of authorship for the Pastoral Epistles is best. If the date was early, not only was it possible that Paul wrote the pastorals, but a pseudonymous author was very unlikely, since a different author would not have succeeded in writing them so close to Paul’s life and death.*5*

Some scholars arguing for the pseudonymity of the pastorals maintain that Paul had a theological school. Students at the schools of Pythagorus and Plato wrote letters in the names of their respective philosophers; with this fact in view, some scholars believe Paul could have had a school of his own and the students would have likely practiced writing in his name as did the students of Pythagorus and Plato.*6* Paul and his close coworkers over time assembled into a group that discussed his theology. Following his death, members from this school could have written in the name of Paul, containing his theology while expressing it in a different style. Vocabulary and grammar could be different, for example. This practice would have been considered authoritative, for the new writer would have been revealing Paul’s thoughts and ideas; since he was Paul’s pupil and Paul was his teacher, he had the ability to do so.*7* Therefore, the student from the school could write in the name of Paul, thus expressing Paul’s theology after Paul had died, and the writing would have been accepted as Paul’s own material. This practice would account for the stylistic differences evident in the pastorals and the accepted letters—those letters that are accepted to be genuinely Pauline. What are those differences?

There are many differences between the Pastoral Letters and the accepted letters, depending on the perspective from which the two categories are being examined. From a vocabulary perspective, word choice is quite different in the Pastoral Epistles compared to the accepted letters. The pastorals have a sum of 902 words. Of the 902 words, 54 of them are proper names. With the proper names aside, there are 848 words. Of the 848 words, 306 never occur in the accepted letters. About 36 percent of the vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles does not exist in the Pauline vocabulary of the accepted letters. Furthermore, 175 words in the pastorals exist nowhere else in the entire New Testament. Only 50 words out of the 858 words occur in the accepted letters but nowhere else in the New Testament. From a content perspective, the Pastoral Epistles express the same general ideas but with different words and phrases than the accepted letters. From the perspective of favorite words, words that are clearly Paul’s and are distinctively his, the Pastoral Epistles do not use any of these key words. Words like “cross” or “crucify” occur 27 times in the accepted letters, but never in the pastorals. Neither do the words “son” or “adoption” occur in the pastorals, whereas they occur 46 times in the accepted letters. From a grammar or syntax perspective, the Pauline characteristic of particles that link sentences together in the Greek language are over abundant in the accepted letters while non-existent in the Pastoral Epistles.*8* One other particularly convincing piece of evidence regarding literary style deals with the dating of particular vocabulary. There are a large number of words in the Pastoral Epistles that occur nowhere else in Paul but are characteristic of second century writings.*9* Indeed, there are a large number of stylistic differences between the pastorals and the accepted letters of Paul.

These differences do not necessarily indicate that the author was a student of Paul’s who was writing pseudonymously. In other words, the stylistic differences do not require that a different author other than Paul was responsible for the Pastoral Epistles. There are a number of other factors that must be considered when attempting to arrive at a conclusion concerning these differences. Paul used an amanuensis in composing other letters, such as Romans, so it could be possible that he used at least one when writing the pastorals. The use of an amanuensis would certainly account for the stylistic differences between the Pastoral Epistles and the accepted letters. It should also be considered that most of the accepted letters were co-authored between Paul and Timothy. If we consider that the pastorals were written only by Paul, then the letter is certainly going to be different from the letters where Paul was not the sole author.*10*

And what about other reasons for differences? The differences in vocabulary, grammar, or style could simply be attributed to the fact that Paul was addressing different subject matter, which required different vocabulary. He also had a different audience from the audiences of the accepted letters. How does that affect our understanding of the differences? What of the fact that age and time could have caused the differences? Could Paul have changed his style over time? And what do we do with some of the criteria in the conclusions of the differences? The letters within the accepted letters could be denied acceptance according to the same criteria. For example, Paul’s use of “examine” occurs 10 times in 1 Corinthians, but nowhere else in Paul’s letters. Should 1 Corinthians be considered pseudonymous because it contains a keyword that does not exist elsewhere in Paul’s letters?*11*

Finally, there is no evidence for a school of theology. No Pauline school seems to have existed during or after the life of Paul, for none of the post-apostolic writers reference or appeal to such a school, namely, Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius, or Polycarp. If there was a school of theology, none of these writers knew of it or felt the need to write about it.*12*

For many scholars, Paul’s activities in the Pastoral Epistles do not align with the activities mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles, leading them to conclude that it was not Paul who wrote them, since they are supposedly telltale signs of pseudonymity. These scholars point out the factual discrepancies between 1 Timothy 1:3 and Acts 20:4-6, for example, where in the pastoral epistle Paul urged Timothy to stay in Ephesus as he urged him while he was on his way to Macedonia, but in Acts Timothy went on ahead to Troas where Paul eventually met up with him.*13* Furthermore, the pastorals speak of missions and events that Acts do not report, such as a mission in Crete in Titus 1:5 and a winter in Nicopolis in Epirus in Titus 3:12.*14*

Those scholars wishing to harmonize these seemingly problematic facts argue that Paul was released from the imprisonment with which Acts closes. They argue that it seems possible that Paul thought release from prison was possible in Rome; it is possible even that Paul expected to be freed. They refer to Philippians 2:24, where Paul says that he trusts in the Lord he would come to see the Philippians, and Philemon 22, where Paul says that Philemon ought to prepare a lodging for him, since he would be coming soon. We do know that Paul wanted to go to Spain, which is clear from Romans 15:24, 28. The Muratorian Canon says that Luke omitted the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. Both Chrysostom and Jerome in the fifth century were certain Paul reached Spain. Clement of Rome wrote about A.D. 90 that Paul preached both in the East and the West and instructed the whole world, starting in the East and having gone into the far reaches of the West. Although it is not certain that the far reaches of the West necessarily refer to Spain, it is at least a possibility. If it does, then it would indicate that Paul was set free as Eusebius reported in his history of the church and, for whatever reason, Acts is incomplete. If Acts did not give the full story, either because it was written before the rest of Paul’s story was completed or because the reason for writing did not require the full story, then there is no problem between Acts and the activities reported in the Pastoral Epistles. Acts could have been incomplete, selective, or both. The events in the pastorals do not necessarily contradict Acts.*15*

However, despite the words evidenced in the Muratorian Canon, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Clement of Rome, we still cannot be certain that Paul made a journey to Spain as he planned. There is no evidence in Spain itself that Paul made it there. Furthermore, no tradition regarding Paul’s journey to Spain originated from that location. We cannot know for certain that Paul made it to Spain, or if he was released from his imprisonment in Rome. As a result, the differences between the Pastoral Epistles and Acts are hard to reconcile.*16*

There are several other factors that lead scholars to maintain a pseudonymous argument, which include, but are not limited to, the following: Marcion’s omission in his own canon; ecclesiastical structure; and orthodoxy. These arguments suggest at the least Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles. To these various issues we now turn.

Marcion, a Gnostic heretic, omitted the Pastoral Epistles from his New Testament canon. He believed that Paul did not write them. However, it is likely that much of the content of the pastorals did not suit well with Marcion, and he likely rejected its authority and did not give it a place in his canon. Statements dealing with the good value of the law and the rejection of knowledge in 1 Timothy 1:8; 6:20 would likely have offended him.*17* He may have omitted it sure enough, but not necessarily because it was thought that Paul did not write the pastorals.

The Pastoral Epistles reflect a higher church structure than the rest of the accepted letters. The church structure contained in the pastorals comes from a much later development than was present during Paul’s time. However, the pastorals mention distinct classes in the Church, such as elders, deacons, and widows, but these classes were referred to quite early, including in the New Testament. The church structure mentioned in the pastorals does not indicate a post-Pauline date.*18* But it can be argued that although Paul does mention such classes of church members elsewhere, as in Philippians 1:1 where he mentions bishops and deacons, he is nowhere else concerned with their duties. It is the duties that seem uncharacteristic of Paul in the pastorals, which leads some scholars to believe that Paul did not write them. Since the duties of the church leaders were the concern of the Didache and Ignatius in his letters, which were late First Century A.D. documents, these scholars argue that the Pastoral Epistles came from that same time and were not written by Paul.*19*

The Pastoral Epistles seem to be largely concerned with orthodoxy, that is, right belief or teaching. This concern seems to imply a post-Pauline date for authorship. Orthodoxy was a stage of theological development when doctrine was finalized and needed to be protected from being corrupted. However, it Paul had a concern for defending orthodoxy from the very beginning, such as the whole of Galatians or 1 Corinthians 15.*20*

The Fragments Theory Argument

According to this view, a common practice would have been to take something that was in fact Paul’s, fragments of his writings, and adapt it in written form to something else. We cannot, according to this theory, go as far to say that a disciple of Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles because of the personal statements made regarding Paul in the letters. For example, a disciple of Paul would honor him and extol him, but would not claim Paul to be the foremost sinner as in 1 Timothy 1:15. Also, why would a disciple tell Timothy to drink a little wine for health reasons in 1 Timothy 5:23? Furthermore, the fourth chapter of 2 Timothy is so personal and intimate that it could not have been written by a disciple. As a result, Paul may not have written the Pastoral Epistles as we know them, but he did have his part in them.*21*

Instead, Paul would have likely had private correspondence with other people. Philemon is an example of private correspondence; it is unlikely that this letter is the only one of this nature. There very well could be fragments of Paul’s other correspondence letters in the hands of another Christian, who, seeing a particular need of the Church, applied them to a customized letter. Taking the fragments, the new author could have adapted and expounded on the fragments, making them ever relevant to the situation at hand. If this theory were correct, then it would account for the similarity in concepts between the Pastoral Epistles and the accepted letters, but also the differences in literary style.*22*

However, there is no unified agreement on which parts of the Pastoral Epistles are fragments of Paul’s personal correspondence letters. Additionally, it is not likely that any personal correspondence letters would have been preserved, since they would have not contained theological matters. And there are also questions. Why augment and adapt the letters? Why not simply copy the letters as they were and pass them around? Why did the new author write three letters? Why not one? This theory seems to produce too many unanswerable questions to be of any help.*23*

Conclusion

We have seen that there are two kinds of arguments against Paul as the author of the Pastoral Epistles. The first argument appeals to the practice of pseudonymous writing. Scholars who maintain that someone wrote the pastorals in Paul’s name to gain authority appeal to various factors, such as Gnosticism, a Pauline school of theology, literary or stylistic differences, historical discrepancies, Marcion’s omission in his canon, church structure, and orthodoxy. However, the opposing side has a rebuttal for each of these considerations. The Gnosticism present in the pastorals is of an early kind, so that the Gnosticism element itself does not necessarily require a late date. No post-apostolic writers make mention of any sort of school of theology. The use of an amanuensis would explain stylistic differences; Paul’s accepted letters were co-authored, but the pastorals were solely the work of Paul, which could also explain the differences in style. It is possible that Paul did make it to Spain and was freed from his Roman imprisonment, so that the pastorals pick up historically where Acts leaves off. Marcion could have purposefully omitted the pastorals due to their conflicting content with his theological agenda. The church structure terms were present early on for Paul and the other epistles in the New Testament and do not require understanding a later date for authorship. The concern for orthodoxy was also present early on and likewise does not require a later date.

The second argument appeals to a collection of personal letters that would have been used by a later writer to instruct the Church in a particular situation. However, this argument raises too many additional questions. Furthermore, there is no evidence for a collection of personal correspondences or the use of fragments from this collection.

Determining the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is difficult. But the decision or conclusion cannot be made with certainty. The question is, what do we make of this uncertainty? Do we displace the pastorals from the New Testament canon? Are they less authoritative? Do they bear any authority at all? Of course they do. They were accepted early on and have been used to instruct the church ever since. We need to be careful to not allow the uncertainty of authorship divide and conquer us. Instead, we should unite on the issues that matter most, agree to disagree, and uphold the authority of Scripture as a whole, even when we cannot be fully assured of the authorship of each book or letter.

--------------------------------
Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul, Joel Green, and Marianne Thompson, eds. Introducing the New Testament: Its literature and theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001.

Barclay, William. The Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Daily Bible Readings. Glasgow: The Church of Scotland, 1956.

Ellis, E. E. “Pastoral Letters,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin, and Daniel Reid, eds. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993. 658-666.

Gundry, Robert. A Survey of the New Testament. 4th ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003.

Patzia, Arthur. The Making of the New Testament: Origin, collection, text & canon. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1995.

Towner, Philip. 1-2 Timothy & Titus. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Grant Osborne, D. Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson, eds. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1994.



*1* Arthur Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, collection, text & canon (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1995), 77.
*2* William Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, Daily Bible Readings (Glasgow: The Church of Scotland, 1956), xxiii.
*3* Philip Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, Grant Osborne, D. Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson, eds. (Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 15.
*4* Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, xxiii.
*5* Robert Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003), 442.
*6* E. E. Ellis, “Pastoral Letters,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin, and Daniel Reid, eds. (Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 659.
*7* Patzia, The Making of the New Testament, 77-8.
*8* Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, xxiii-iv.
*9* Paul Achtemeier, Joel Green, and Marianne Thompson, eds., Introducing the New Testament: Its literature and theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 461.
*10* Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus, 34-5.
*11* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 441.
*12* Ellis, “Pastoral Letters,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 659.
*13* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 443.
*14* Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, xxiv.
*15* Ibid., xxv-vii.
*16* Ibid., xxvii.
*17* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 442.
*18* Ibid., 442-43.
*19* Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson, Introducing the New Testament, 462-63.
*20* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 443.
*21* Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, xxviii.
*22* Ibid., xxviii-ix.
*23* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 440.

Exegesis and Application of Ruth 4:1-4

The following is part of my Hebrew II final; it is a translation of Ruth 4:1-4 with an exegetical commentary using my own notes and several commentaries provided by the professor to use specifically for the final, and finally it is applied to our situation today.


Translation:

And Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there. Behold, the kinsman was passing by whom Boaz was speaking of. Boaz said, “Turn this way, sit here, So and so.” And he turned and sat down. And he took 10 men from the elders of the city and he said, “Sit down here.” And they sat down. And he said to the kinsman, “Naomi, the one who returned from the field of Moab, is selling a portion of the field belonging to our brother, Elimelech. “And I said, ‘I will reveal to you by saying, “Buy the land before the ones sitting and before the elders of my people. If you will redeem, redeem. But if he will not redeem, declare it to me and I may know that there is no other except you to redeem, and I am after you.”’” And he said, “I will act as kinsman.”

Ruth 4:1-4 describes the portion of Ruth where Boaz confronts the next-of-kin. In this text, Boaz publicly and officially declares to him to take charge of his responsibility, since he has not yet acted and fulfilled his duty. Let us examine the text in Hebrew, the original language with which the book of Ruth was written, starting with verse 1.

Boaz went to the city gate most likely during the conversation between Ruth and Naomi in Chapter 3 (these two events may in fact be simultaneous). Although it is not imperative to understanding the story, it might help in understanding the setting to know that the events may be happening at the same time. According to one commentator, Boaz was the head of the Sanhedrin; the Sanhedrin met at the city gate.*1* Regardless if this is true, for the text itself does not say Boaz was the head of the Sanhedrin, official matters were dealt with at the city gate. Boaz is seeking to officially settle the issue with the next-of-kin. What was the issue?

The next-of-kin, or גֹאֵל in Hebrew, had not performed his duty. As גֹאֵל, he was to buy the land from Naomi, thus keeping it in the family. But this גֹאֵל had not even so much as indicated that he was going to fulfill his role. As a result, Boaz went to the gate to resolve the issue. After Boaz arrived at the gate, the text literally says, “And behold, the kinsman was passing by whom Boaz was speaking of.” It is as though God orchestrated the event. Boaz was speaking of the גֹאֵל at the gate, and while he was speaking, not as coincidence, he came passing by.*2*

Boaz took charge at the moment the גֹאֵל was passing by. He commanded him to turn and sit down. But he did not call him by name. The NRSV rendering, “friend,” is misleading. The Hebrew reads פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי. The meaning of this phrase has been lost.*3* It is possible that it could be a name, but it is highly unlikely. It is possible that it could have an idea of concealment or secrecy behind it, but this is quite uncertain. It is probably best to take it to mean “So and so” (literally, “certain one--so and so”). Perhaps the reason for this convoluted phrase is the fact that in one copy of the Septuagint, one commentator says, the phrase is translated into Greek to mean “anonymous,” while in a different copy of the Septuagint, the phrase is translated to mean “secret.” It is plausible that this textual variant contributes to the obscure interpretation of the phrase for us today. Whatever the reason, the end result is we have lost the way the original audience heard, interpreted, and understood this phrase.*4* One commentator likes the translation “John Doe.”*5* However, this translation would lead a contemporary reader to believe that the person’s name is simply not known and so the anonymous name is applied to that person. However, we do not know if the situation merits this translation. Perhaps the real name was known to the original audience, and it was instead left out of the text and replaced with the anonymous phrase for dramatic effect (i.e., “unmentionable one”). In any case, it seems best to leave the translation as “So and so,” so that no confusion or incorrect interpretation might take place.

After commanding פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי to turn and sit, the text says he turned and sat down. In verse 2, Boaz then proceeded to get 10 elders to sit down at the gate. Ten men were necessary for a lawful assembly.*6* One commentator says that 10 sages were required to be present for marriage ceremonies, and thus links the situation here in Ruth with a wedding.*7* The text itself does not necessarily indicate that a wedding ceremony is occurring. To proclaim a wedding in this text is to interpret beyond the boundaries of the text. In other words, it makes more out of the story than is actually present. We need only to say that an official meeting is taking place, since the setting is at the city gate and ten elders of the city are present, which satisfy the requirements to have an official meeting.

After having assembled 10 elders at the gate, in verse 3 Boaz then speaks to פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי. He says that Naomi is selling the plot of land that belonged to Elimelech, their brother. What is difficult here is the Hebrew word מָכְרָה. It is Qal Perfect, which means it is rendered literally, “She sold.” Did Naomi already sell the land? Verse five prohibits a sale, since Boaz charges פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי to purchase the land, and there is no mention of a waiting period in accord with the law if it was previously sold.*8* As in this case, the Qal Perfect can have a present meaning. In this case, the verb ought to be translated, “She is selling,” or, “She is going to sell.” One commentator argues that since the land itself was not sold, only the right to use the land could be purchased, she in fact was not selling the land but was surrendering her rights to the use of the land.*9* This understanding seems logical enough, but the text does not strongly support it. Perhaps the text is literally, “She is going to sell,” but in the back of the minds of the audience it was understood that she was selling her rights to the land. In any case, a transaction is in view; it is the goods that are being purchased that are in dispute for this particular commentator. The Septuagint notes that the land was given to Naomi and does not have the idea of a purchase. This issue is not easily resolved. It seems as though the Septuagint translation wants to avoid Naomi selling land in any case, and so interprets it to mean that Naomi was given the plot of land Boaz was talking about. The Septuagint reading is very unlikely to be original, since it can be explained from the more difficult reading. It is somewhat problematic for a woman to be in charge of selling land. The Septuagint wants to avoid this problem and has strayed from the original reading. To sum up this situation, we can be certain that a transaction is in view, but all the specific details surrounding the transaction are uncertain.

Boaz continued speaking in verse 4. He literally said, “I said I will uncover your ears to say,” meaning, “I said I will reveal to you by saying.” Boaz is saying that he has set out to inform פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי of his duties. What were his duties? Boaz explicitly stated the duties, and he underscored the legal ramifications of his decisions, since they were at the gate with 10 elders. He said, “Buy the plot of land before the ones sitting down and before the elders of my people.” Boaz charges him to buy the land Naomi is selling, which is the responsibility of the next-of-kin. One commentator has argued that there are two groups present at the meeting, as indicated by the double use of נֶגֶב.*10* Another commentator argues that this double use is a reiteration. The second use is in apposition to the first to note the same group. In other words, there is only one group present.*11* Given the setting from verse 1, we should agree with the latter commentator and take the double use of נֶגֶב to be an appositional statement in reference to the same group. Boaz charges the גֹאֵל to purchase the land in the presence of the 10 elders he had assembled at the gate. He conditionally states, “If you will redeem, redeem.” In other words, “If you intend to act as kin, do it!” The second “redeem” is a command. He is firmly stating that if he intends to act as kin, he needs to do it promptly. But Boaz does not stop there. He continues his conditional statement, saying, “And if he will not redeem declare it to me.” Here we must stop to consider some important textual issues.

The text is written as “he will redeem.” However, many manuscript versions have “you will redeem.” It is odd to have the text in the third person while directly speaking to the גֹאֵל. It is problematic to have it in the third person. But it is precisely for this reason that we can say that “he will redeem” is the original text, for it explains the change in the other manuscripts into the second person (and not the other way around). If it was original, since it is difficult, later scribes would have changed it to the second person to make it easier and more in harmony with the context. Given this reason alongside of the fact that there are more manuscripts in support of the third person, the correct reading is “he will redeem.” It should also be noted that this verb is not passive, so any translation wishing to interpret it as “it will be redeemed” is not correct.*12*

If the גֹאֵל would not redeem the land, then Boaz requested that it be declared to him so that he would know, for there was no one else to redeem the land. But Boaz was next after the גֹאֵל he was confronting. The text reads, “and I will know,” but in the margins of the Hebrew Bible there is a marking indicating that the text should be audibly read as “and I may know.” The difference between the two is important. The former is incomplete, which is understood as an action to be done in the future. The imperfect makes the verb as a result of the declaration. The latter is causitive, which is understood to cause an action to be done. The cohortative makes the verb function as the purpose of the declaration. In this case, the text is written as imperfect, but it is understood by the scribes to be cohortative. In other words, although it is written as imperfect, and this is the original text, it is understood to be cohortative, so that it is not translated “and I will know,” but rather, “and I may know.”*13*

For the first time in the narrative, the גֹאֵל speaks. He said, “I will redeem.” However, he responds with the imperfect rather than the perfect. The perfect would be used if it were an official declaration, but since he responded with the imperfect, he was indicating that he was willing to perform the duty of the גֹאֵל, but at the same time he was leaving the option open for Boaz to take over.*14*

In the end, Boaz took the position of גֹאֵל and from his line came King David and eventually Jesus Christ. Boaz was not only a leader, but he was a valiant and noble leader. He helped, by the power and guidance of the Lord, to set things right for Naomi and Ruth, so that Naomi could override her previous declaration to be called Bitter (Mara) and instead be called Pleasant (Naomi). As for “So and so,” we do not know what became of him. We do know that Scripture has purposefully left as much as his name out.

In this text, we come to an important truth. We need to be led by God and to do what is right. Boaz was led by God to do what was right in relationship to his relatives. How often do we complain about having to go meet with relatives in our setting today? It should not be so. Family is important. The Bible places a strong emphasis on the importance of family, including relatives. God honors those who stand by the needs of their family. Boaz was honored by eventually having his lineage blessed with kingship; in addition, he was blessed when his lineage took on the Messiah, God’s chosen one. Therefore, we need to do what is right as God has instructed us to do, including with our family. If anyone has a relative in need, so long as it is possible, come to that relative’s aid. Lend them money without requiring a return. Loan them possessions. Tend to them when they are sick, or when they are near death. Do not forsake family; hold on to relatives.

A family had a grandmother who was a heavy smoker. She developed emphysema and needed an oxygen tank to help her breathe. Eventually, she developed lung cancer. She was in a terrible amount of pain. However, her family did not come to her aid. She was a bitter woman. For some reason or another, she treated her daughter-in-laws very terribly. Her grandchildren suffered psychologically from the verbal abuse that she shot at her sons’ wives. But her sons did not do what is honoring to the Lord. They did not aid their mother. She died bitterly. The story of Ruth demands that we do differently. If we ever find ourselves in that position, we should tend to our mothers even if they have dealt bitterly with us and with our wives. We need to spread the love of God to everyone, including those who hurt, and especially to our family. Just as Boaz acted, so also should we take leadership and honor God by coming to the aid of our family.

___________________________________
Bibliography

Gray, James. The Biblical Museum: A collection of notes, explanatory, homiletic, and illustrative, on the Holy Scriptures, especially designed for the use of ministers, bible-students, and Sunday school teachers. Vol. 3. New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Company, year not found.

Broch, Yitzchak. Ruth: The book of Ruth in Hebrew and English with a Talmudic-Midrashic commentary. 2nd ed. Jerusalem and New York: Feldheim, 1983.

Bush, Frederic. Word Biblical Commentary: Ruth, Esther. David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, John Watts, eds. Vol. 9. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1996.

Campbell, Edward. Ruth: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1975.

Zlatowitz, Meir. The Book of Ruth. 2nd ed. Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1993.

*1*Yitzchak Broch, Ruth: The book of Ruth in Hebrew and English with a Talmudic-Midrashic commentary, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem and New York: Feldheim, 1983), 90. Cf. also Meir Zlatowitz, The Book of Ruth, 2nd ed. (New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1993), 120.
*2*Edward Campbell, Ruth: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 141. Cf. also Zlatowitz, The Book of Ruth, 120.
*3*Campbell, Ruth, 143.
*4*Ibid.
*5*Ibid., 141.
*6*James Gray, The Biblical Museum: A collection of notes, explanatory, homiletic, and illustrative, on the Holy Scriptures, especially designed for the use of ministers, bible-students, and Sunday school teachers, vol. 3 (New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Company, year not found), 180.
*7*Broch, Ruth, 91.
*8*Zlatowitz, The Book of Ruth, 123.
*9*Frederic Bush, Ruth, Esther, Word Biblical Commentary, David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, John Watts, eds., vol. 9 (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1996), 200.
*10*Campbell, Ruth, 145.
*11*Bush, Ruth, Esther, 207.
*12*Bush and Zlotowitz are ones who take the verb to be passive.
*13*Bush, Ruth, Esther, 210.
*14*Bush, Ruth, Esther, 210.

Paul's Perspective on Women

This paper was submitted to my New Testament: Acts through Revelation class. It looks at how those scholars who maintain Paul does not contradict himself conclude that Paul has a high view of women. It also looks at how they harmonize positive texts, those areas of Paul's letters that seem to have a positive view of women, with negative texts, those other areas that seem misogynistic. It briefly explores the positive texts while focusing heavily on four of the most popular seemingly negative ones.




Introduction

Many people find Paul’s perspective on women to be very confusing. Paul seems to affirm a positive view of women, such as in Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 16, 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, 1 Timothy 5:3-16, and Titus 2:3-5, where he identifies women to be on the same level playing field as men. However, Paul also seems to have a negative view of women, such as in 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, Ephesians 5, and 1 Timothy 2, where he subordinates women to men. Does Paul contradict himself? Some scholars have argued that there is no contradiction and that Paul does have a good perspective on women. We should look at the aforementioned negative texts and see how scholars who argue that Paul has a positive view of women and does not contradict himself make their case. We will look at what they argue and claim regarding each of the negative texts, and then we will summarize their methods. Before we look at the scholarly explanations of the seemingly negative texts, let us first look at the general feel of the positive texts, so that we will see the distinction between the two types that are often juxtaposed.

Looking at Scripture

Positive Texts

There are five positive texts that we should briefly summarize, which are Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 16, Titus 2:3-5, 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, and 1 Timothy 5:3-16. In Galatians 3:26-29, Paul argued as follows: in Christ, we are all equals; ethnic, social, and gender distinctions do not exist in Christ. The issue at hand is a present equality in Christ for every person so that gender distinctions do not exist.

In Romans 16, Phoebe is identified as a deacon and a benefactor (vv. 1-2), Prisca (or Priscilla), who is a coworker with Paul, is the object, along with her husband, of much gratitude among the Gentiles, and in fact she and her husband host a house church (vv. 3-5), Mary is said to work hard for the Roman church (v. 6), Junia is identified as a relative of Paul and as being prominent among the apostles (v. 7), Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis are identified as workers in the Lord (v. 12), Rufus’ mother is identified as a non-biological mother to Paul (v. 13), and Julia and Nereus’ sister are identified among a company of saints (v. 15). All of these people are women, and they are all considered to be prominent in some way or another in the church. It seems in this text that women were seen as coworkers and equals alongside men in Paul’s view.

The next three passages give or affirm some sort of rights or privileges to women. In Titus 2:3-5, older women are charged with specific instructions for leadership for the specific purpose of teaching younger women. Here it seems women are specifically given a leadership role in ministry in this specific text, and although it is a leadership role over other women, it is a leadership role nonetheless. In 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, each man is urged to have his own wife and each wife should have her own husband (v. 2). The husband should give his wife her conjugal rights, and the wife to her husband (v. 3). The wife does not have authority over her body, and the husband does not have authority over his body (v. 4). Paul views marriage through a lens of equality, so that wives have the same rights as their husbands. In 1 Timothy 5:3-16, Paul affords provision for women by the church, women who are old widows and are true widows--those who meet specific qualifications. Paul shows concern for widows.

Therefore, the positive texts that we have looked at seem to demonstrate that Paul had a positive view of women. He was concerned for the care of widows. He upheld equality in terms of conjugal rights in marriage between the husband and wife. He made room for women to teach at least other women. He perceived women to be equal co-workers alongside himself and other men in service to the church and to the Lord. He taught that in Christ there is neither male nor female; in Christ there is no gender distinction. However, Paul elsewhere seems to contradict this positive view. We should now look at the seemingly negative texts and see how some scholars have treated these passages.

Negative Texts

There are four seemingly negative texts that we are going to look at, which are 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, Ephesians 5:21-33, and 1 Timothy 2:8-15, respectively.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, there are several pieces that point toward a negative view of women. We should summarize this text’s contents. Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ (v. 3). Disgrace comes upon the head of a man who prays with his head covered (v. 4). Disgrace also comes upon the head of a woman who prays with her head uncovered (v. 5). Man is the reflection and image of God, and women are the image and reflection of man (v. 7). Woman was made from man and woman was made for man (vv. 8-9). Woman should have authority on her head because of the angels (v. 10). In the Lord woman is not independent from man nor man independent of woman (v. 11). Woman came from man but so also man comes from woman through childbirth (v. 12). However, all things come from God (v. 12). It should be asked, “Is it proper for women to pray with their heads unveiled?” (v. 13). It should also be asked, “Does nature say men who cover their heads are a disgrace?” (v. 14). Finally, it should be asked, “Does nature say women who have long hair are glory?” (v. 15).

There are no less than six questions regarding 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. What does “head” mean? What does the relationship between Christ and man, husband and wife, and God and Christ mean in relation to “head”? What is the significance of head coverings? What does the image of God and image of man mean? What does “because of the angels” mean? What does it mean that man and woman are not independent of each other in the Lord? Perhaps these questions should be answered (or attempted to be answered) by considering the issue at hand.
Paul seems to be concerned with praying according to the social customs in public and seems to be addressing a specific issue that the Corinthians had inquired to him about. But it seems from this text that Paul perceived men to be the rulers of women. Is this Paul’s view? Linda Belleville says that it is not.

According to Belleville, 1 Corinthians 11 explains how women should pray or prophesy, but it does not question who or what one should pray.*1* To be clear, her point is that Paul was not restricting wives from speaking in church worship, but rather he was prescribing how women generally ought to speak in church worship.*2*

In Belleville’s view, the issue in 1 Corinthians 11 is not concerning husbands and wives, but rather males and females; it has been suggested that since virtually all women were married during the First Century A.D., it can be assumed that “males” and “females” is understood to mean “husbands” and “wives,” but this proposal does not consider Paul’s care for widows, virgins, and the divorced earlier in 1 Corinthians.*3*

Belleville argues that Paul’s instructions were addressing a specific situation. During the First Century A.D., Asia Minor had fixed customs regarding gender attire. The words “shameful”, “proper”, and “disgraceful” in 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrate that Paul seems to be concerned with these social customs regarding gender attire. However, Paul’s appeal to Genesis 2 involves something more than inappropriate attire; women and men are taught by nature to wear their hair differently from each other. By addressing the issue of hair, gender distinctions are clearly at hand. Women were approved by Paul to pray or prophesy alongside men, but Paul was concerned with how they publicly performed prayer or prophecied.*4*

Belleville demonstrates that the attire in question in 1 Corinthians 11 is headgear. Is it hair? Is it a covering? Verses 14-15 seem to indicate that women ought to cover their heads with something else because of their long hair. The long hair is understood to be a covering provided by nature, but it is not the head covering itself. Also, in v. 6, Paul said that if a woman will not cover her head then she should cut off her hair, which assumed a different covering from her hair itself. Verse 10 also suggests that something other than the woman’s hair ought to be placed on her head, because there was no indication in the First Century A.D. that hair and authority were linked, but it was an accepted practice for female laity in Roman religions to place a cover on their heads before performing religious functions.*5*

Furthermore, Roman women did not wear head coverings in public, but religious laity and civic leaders did cover their heads in public by pulling their togas up far enough to cover their head. There was a leadership role for women in the First Century A.D. But there was still a necessity to keep distinctions between the sexes, even though both genders are equal in Christ.*6*

Head coverings are not the only piece of the text in question. Paul’s use of “head” is also a strong focus in modern scholarship and research concerning 1 Corinthians 11. Belleville argues that we can determine how Paul was using “head” by drawing on the language of vv. 7, 8, and 12, and we will find that he used it something along the lines of “glory.”*7*

In Belleville’s understanding, the problem for Paul was when a woman uncovered her head attention would be drawn to her masculine origin or “head,” so that attention was taken away from God. Women were to cover their heads so that God was the focus of everyone’s attention.*8*

Craig Keener argues along the same lines as Belleville. He is additionally helpful in terms of his treatment on head coverings. He notes the function and significance of a woman who revealed her hair in public for the Corinthian cultural setting. According to Keener, a wife who revealed her hair in public was tantamount to cheating on her husband, for a woman’s hair was perceived as a sexual object by men. This thought also explains why virgins and prostitutes uncovered their hair in public; they were seeking to draw attention to themselves, that is, they were attempting to attract men.*9* At the very least, head coverings were typical of married women.*10* Husbands wanted to preserve their rights to the beauty of their wives; head coverings helped to preserve such rights. When wives went into public without their heads covered, they were perceived as being immodest for publicly displaying their beauty, for the head and hair were seen as the most important part of a woman’s beauty.*11*

Keener is also helpful in his treatment of Paul’s phrase, “because of the angels.” Keener argues that the statement for a woman to have a covering over her head because of the angels was Paul’s way of saying that women did have authority over their heads but they needed to use their authority responsibly, that is, for propriety’s sake. Paul’s intention was to avoid contention by adhering to cultural customs.*12*

Keener’s argument that Paul was attempting to avoid conflict with cultural customs is supported by Walter Liefeld’s argument that Paul was instructing women in this way for evangelistic purposes. Liefeld links Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to what we find in 1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1, because of the conjunction de that joins the two passages together. The earlier passage is concerned with actions for the sake of evangelism, and de in 1 Corinthians 11:2 links this new passage with the previously stated evangelistic purpose.*13*

Belleville, Keener and Liefeld, along with other scholars, argue that Paul was giving instructions based on a specific situation. According to these scholars, Paul did not prohibit women from speaking, but rather he instructed them for their situation how they were to speak when they were at church worship. They also emphasize Paul’s intentions for the instructions; they served an evangelistic function. Their arguments point out that Paul did not contradict himself, because he was not instructing the Corinthian women with timeless rules. Instead, he acknowledged their rights, but for the sake of the gospel, he asked them in their particular situation to give up their rights. For these scholars, there is no contradiction, because the positive texts have a timeless scope while 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has a limited and specific scope.

1 Corinthians 14:33-36

In 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, Paul made a rather negative and harsh remark concerning women. The text reads that women should be silent as in all the churches of the saints (vv. 33-34). Women are not permitted to speak (v. 34). Women are to be subordinate as the law says (v. 34). If women desire to know anything, they need to ask their husbands at home (v. 35). It is shameful for a woman to speak in church (v. 35). This passage sounds like it is in contradiction with Romans 16 or Galatians 3. However, there are some questions that must be asked regarding this passage. What does Paul mean when he says, “As in all the churches of the saints?” What law did Paul refer to? What is the significance of the questions that Paul asks in v. 36? It does seem as though Paul was concerned about disorder in the church worship, and he did instruct women to be silent in the church. It seems as though Paul did have a negative view of women, especially when he restricted them from speaking in church worship. Is this accurate? Again, Belleville disagrees.

Belleville demonstrates that this passage is difficult enough to begin with, let alone the fact that it seems that Paul was contradicting himself. There is much to consider in terms of the difficulty of this passage. Paul did not specify to what or to whom women were to submit. Paul did not specify if the law was the Mosaic law, church law, or the law of the land. Paul did not specify what it was that the women desired to learn. Paul did not specify why it was disgraceful for women to speak in church worship.*14*

The phrase, “as in all the congregations of the saints,” adds to the difficulty of this passage. Does it go with the preceding words or the following words? If the phrase goes with the following words, then it approves the silence of the women in the church. If the phrase goes with what precedes it, then it approves orderly worship in the church.*15*

Belleville rightly argues that we need to come to terms with the use of “as” phrases in Paul’s writings in order to understand this phrase in 1 Corinthians 14. Did Paul use “as” phrases to conclude or begin a thought? He used them for both. How did Paul use “as” phrases in regards to church practice? In 1 Corinthians 4:17; 7:17; 11:16, similar “as” phrases conclude Paul’s arguments. Specifically concerning church practice, “as” phrases conclude arguments and instructions in 1 Corinthians. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:33 fits the mold. We should attach the present “as” phrase to the preceding words due to the pattern of “as” phrases in connection with church practices in 1 Corinthians. Furthermore, according to Belleville, if the “as” phrase goes with the following words, Paul would be repeating himself rather sloppily with the words “in the churches” said twice in the same sentence. Finally, the words, “let the women,” are a typically Pauline way of starting a new paragraph, such as in Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18. Given the use of “as” statements in 1 Corinthians in connection with church practice, given the use of the words “in the churches,” and given the use of the words “let the women,” we can be confident that “as in all the churches of the saints” belongs with the preceding words.*16*

Belleville points out the confusion behind the phrase “as the law says.” We simply do not know what law Paul was referring to. There is no Old Testament law that instructs women to submit to their husbands. Genesis 3:16 is not understood in this way, so we cannot attribute it as such. Jesus did not instruct women to submit to their husbands either. Paul did instruct women to submit to their husbands, but he did not equate his instructions with the law. Was it the law of the church or the law of the land? Greek and Jewish marital contracts did involve wifely obedience, but Roman contracts typically did not. Since the word “husband” is not present in this passage, we should consider it on a broader basis. We should start by looking at Paul’s use of “submit” elsewhere in his letters. “Submit” for Paul was virtually voluntary. Churches submit themselves to their leaders (1 Cor. 16:16), believers submit themselves to secular authority (Rom. 13:1), slaves are to submit themselves to their masters (Col. 3:22), and wives are to submit themselves to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5). The context of 1 Corinthians 14, in addition to the typical use of “submit” throughout the rest of Paul’s letters, helps us to understand what Paul meant here in v. 34. Paul said that the spirits of the prophets were to submit to the prophets, so that when another prophet received a revelation, the first prophet was to sit and be silent; furthermore, those who spoke in tongues were to be silent when there was no one to interpret. Therefore, to be silent was to be in submission. The idea was to have control over the tongue for the purpose of preserving order. Tongues speakers, prophets and women were to be silent for the sake of orderly worship.*17*

Belleville argues that since we do not know of a Roman, Greek or Jewish law from the First Century A.D. that commanded women to submit, we must look for help elsewhere, and we can find it by focusing on what Paul meant by “silence.” We know that women are permitted and approved to pray and prophesy in the church, so what kind of silence is Paul talking about? There are four things we need to note. One, the context of 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 is about public worship. First Corinthians 14:23, 26 uses the words, “When you gather as a church,” which indicate that a public service is in mind. Two, the speaking that is being silenced is of a disruptive nature. Paul is focused on orderly worship and orderly speaking, so the silencing of speaking must be an effort to stop the kind that frustrates the orderly service. Three, the source of the disruptive speaking is married women. In 1 Corinthians 14:35, Paul tells the married women to ask their own husbands questions at home. Four, the women were disrupting out of a desire to learn. Inspired speech was not the issue; Paul was not instructing against the use of spiritual gifts. The women made the mistake of asking questions in the wrong place, and it is likely that they were asking the wrong people too, otherwise Paul would not have said, “ask your own husbands.” To ask another man a question and not one’s own husband would have been shameful for anyone in the Greco-Roman culture of the First Century A.D. Blurting out questions would have caused confusion, which would have hindered the church’s witness to outsiders. Furthermore, in pagan worship it was improper for women to blurt out questions, and public speaking was discouraged in that culture, so to have women asking questions during a worship service would have been disgraceful.*18*

Belleville argues further that women were in a position to ask questions. According to Belleville, women were not well-educated, which would give rise to questions. Formal instruction for women typically stopped around ages 12-16, depending on if the female was a Jew, Greek or Roman. Lower-class women were not in a position to pursue formal instruction as a career. Instead, women were in charge of raising children and managing the household, so there was hardly any time for them to learn.*19*

Belleville notes that Paul in fact affirmed the right for women to learn and be instructed in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, but he instructed them to do it at home with their own husbands. He also affirmed the right for women to ask questions, but again, this was to be done at home with their own husbands. Also, bear in mind that it was not only women who were silenced, but it was also “long-winded prophets” and “unintelligible speakers.” Paul targeted anyone or anything that disrupted the edification of the church.*20*

Keener points out as Belleville does that Paul seems to be silencing questions. He is helpful in pointing out the significance of asking questions in a public format in the First Century A.D. It was possible for questions to lead to shame. In all ancient lecture settings, questions were permitted, except when the person who was asking the question was not sufficiently educated. When someone was not sufficiently educated, it was expected that he or she would keep silent.*21* Furthermore, whispering during a lecture was perceived as rude.*22* It may not have been acceptable for unlearned people to ask the speaker questions, but it neither was it acceptable for the unlearned people to ask the learned people around them during the speaker’s lecture. Both were seen as shameful. Paul seems to want to spare the women from such shame.

Keener concludes with a similar statement as Belleville. According to Keener, Paul instructs women to learn by asking their own husbands questions at home. In Paul’s view the husbands were responsible for educating their wives. He avoided breaking cultural customs of propriety by giving such instructions, but he was not against their learning, nor did he prohibit them from praying or prophesying in church worship. The issues here were not gender, but propriety, and not speaking, but learning.*23*

Belleville, Keener, and others, have argued that Paul was silencing women in a specific form of speech, and he was not silencing speech in its totality. They do reference back to 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul affirmed that women pray and prophecy in church worship, so he was not silencing all speech. They recognize that Paul’s instructions were given in order to meet a specific need, as they did in their treatments of 1 Corinthians 11. They emphasize that women were uneducated and would have been prone to asking questions. Given the possibility for questions to bring shame onto the uneducated women, Paul instructed them to learn by asking their husbands questions at home. Their arguments indicate that Paul did not contradict himself. He was writing his letter within the confines of a specific situation and was not laying down timeless guidelines. Therefore, Paul was not being negative or misogynistic. Rather, he was positively affirming women’s right to learn, but he made that right available in such a way that the women’s pursuit of their rights did not hinder the gospel.

Ephesians 5:21-33

In Ephesians 5:21-33, all the believers are told to be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ (v. 21). Wives are told to be subject to their husbands as they are to the Lord (v. 22). The husband is said to be the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church of whom he is its Savior (v. 23). As the church is subject to Christ, so also should wives be subject to their husbands (v. 24). Husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (v. 25). Husbands are also told to love their wives as they love their own bodies, for whoever loves his wife loves himself (v. 28). The argument closes, saying that husbands should love their wives as themselves and wives should respect their husbands (v. 33). There are at least a couple of questions that arise from this passage. What did Paul mean when he said, “be subject to one another,” but then turned around and explicitly told the wives to be subject to their husbands and did not instruct the husbands to be subject to the wives? How are we to understand his statement that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church? The issue seems to be that Paul was addressing how the Ephesians should be living as imitators of God, which includes submitting to each other. This submission seems to work out differently in Paul’s mind for husbands and wives. Submission for husbands is to love, and for wives is to respect. But it seems as though Paul negatively instructed women to submit to the leadership of their husbands. Is this what Paul was affirming? Belleville does not agree.

According to Belleville, wives are called to submit to their husbands, but it is important to note that they are called to submit, not to obey. Obedience is required of an inferior. In this context we find that slaves and children were instructed to obey their superiors. However, submission is a voluntary and humble acceptance of the wishes of an equal. The wives are free and responsible agents equal to their spouses. Furthermore, what the wives are instructed to do is no different from what all believers are called to do to one another. Paul instructed all of the Ephesians to submit to one another before he instructed the wives to submit to their husbands. The implication is that the instruction Paul gave to women was not negative, and it did not necessarily indicate a hierarchical subordination.*24*

Belleville argues that the instruction to the women has an evangelistic purpose. She says that there is good reason to accept that Paul’s instructions reflected the social customs of the First Century A.D., and so must be understood as an evangelistic tool in their cultural context. First, the instruction for the wives to submit is not grounded in the creation order of male and female. Paul quoted the creation order to stress mutuality in marriage, but he did not appeal to the creation order when instructing the wives to submit. In wanting not to discount the gospel, Paul wanted to appeal to the culture by following the social norm. Second, the instruction to the wives is not grounded by Paul in Scripture, as are the other instructions given to children and husbands. Instead, Paul stated that the wives should submit to their husbands because it was fitting (and he instructed slaves to obey their masters for the same reason). Again, Paul was attempting to appeal to the social norms of their culture. Third, Paul based his instructions on social reasons. Elsewhere in the New Testament, wives were instructed to submit to their husbands so that God’s word would not be discounted (Titus 2:5). Evangelism through social norms was the goal of the church. In order for the gospel to be credible, the Christians had to act in socially acceptable or inoffensive ways.*25*

Belleville looks at Paul’s use of “head” and the analogy here as a distinctive feature describing the relationship between the husband and wife. Focusing on the analogy of Christ and his relationship to the church, she argues that Christ is both savior and sustainer of the church. Neither nouns, “head” or “savior”, have the definite article, so the two are descriptive rather than definitive. “Head” in this instance refers to source, not chief ruler; likewise, “savior” refers to life-giving preservation. Christ sacrificed his life so that the church, which finds its source in Christ, could live. This sacrificial preservation is the model for which the husband ought to love his wife. As Christ cares for and tends to the church’s needs, so also must the husband provide for his wife. Paul continued on to say that such provision was really caring for oneself. The church is Christ’s body, and the wife is the husband’s body, because the two have become one flesh.*26*

Belleville rightly notes that Paul instructed the husband to love, not rule, his wife. Paul does not give any sort of ruling authority over the wife to the husband in this instance. Instead of instructing the husbands to rule over their wives, whom he had just instructed to submit to their husbands, he instructed them to love their wives. Furthermore, Paul instructed them three times to love their wives, once in v. 25, v. 28, and v. 33. The example of Christ excludes ruling over, because, after all, Christ came to serve. Similarly, Paul did not give any sort of decision-making rights to the husband in this instance. In Paul’s understanding, the heart, not the head, was what made decisions (1 Corinthians 7:37). It is important that he does not say the husband is the heart of the wife. The analogy of “head” only expresses source, which is made clear when Paul sited Genesis 2, identifying that the church is the Eve of the Second Adam, being bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh.*27*

Keener perceives Ephesians 5:21-33 in a similar way as Belleville, but he is helpful in pointing out some additional pieces of information. He affirms that Paul upheld traditional Roman family values, probably because the Romans did not like Eastern religions that put into question or attempted to challenge their social customs, and in some cases they discounted such religions.*28* Whatever the reason, Paul used traditional categories of household codes, which were the codes for husbands and wives, parents and children, and masters and slaves, but he radically differed in his instruction when he told all the believers to mutually submit.*29*

Keener emphasizes that Paul’s language was radical. He instructed all believers to submit to each other. The instructions he gives men is not typical. Rulers of the house were generally instructed in how to rule, not how to love.*30* Even the subordinates in Paul’s household code here in Ephesians, the wives, children and slaves, were to submit voluntarily, which was not the typical household code language. Paul, while working within particular cultural confines, instructed wives, children and slaves without calling into question the social practices and customs. According to Keener, Paul was giving specific instructions for specific situations.*31*

I. Howard Marshall points out an important connection between Ephesians 5:21 and 5:18. Ephesians 5:18 is a command to be filled with the Spirit, and what follows is a set of participles that describe how believers should be filled. The last participle is found in 5:21. This participle identifies that submitting to one another is one of the ways believers are to be filled with the Spirit. This idea of submitting is made explicit to the wives in Ephesians 5:22, but the men, including husbands, were instructed to submit as well.*32*

Belleville, Keener, Marshall, and others argue that Paul was not negative but positive. Paul was arguing for women to choose to submit themselves to their husbands for evangelistic purposes. Again, they emphasize that Paul was meeting a particular situation with specific instructions. Their arguments demonstrate that Paul was not contradicting himself because his timeless principles were not being violated or reversed. In fact, they point out that Paul was unusual, because he did not instruct the men to rule, but to love, and for reasons that were not typical.

1 Timothy 2:8-15

In 1 Timothy 2:8-15, a negative view seems to be plainly in sight. Men are to pray in every place with their hands lifted up and without anger or argument (v. 8), while women are to dress modestly and decently, without braids, gold, pearls, or expensive clothes (v. 9). Instead, women are to dress with good works (v. 10). Women are to learn in silence in full submission (v. 11). Women are not permitted to teach or bear authority over a man (v. 12). Women are to keep silent (v. 12). Adam was formed first, and then Eve, but it was Eve who was deceived (vv. 13-14). This text raises no less than eight questions. What did Paul mean by “dress modestly”? Why would Paul say that women could not dress with braids, gold, pearls or expensive clothes? What did Paul mean by “dress with good works”? What did he mean by “learn in silence and in full submission”? Why did he not permit women to teach or bear authority? Why did he instruct women to keep silent? What was Paul’s purpose in referencing and discussing Adam and Eve? What did Paul mean when he said that women will be saved through childbearing? There are not a few questions to face, but everyone who argues that Paul does not contradict himself must deal with each of these questions. In this passage, Paul seems to be instructing men and women how to pray. It seems as though he was not allowing women to teach or be a leader over men. Is this so? Belleville does not think so.

Belleville understands that the primary purpose of 1 Timothy was to instruct leaders against false teaching.*33* She argues that Paul was addressing a specific and problematic situation, which means he was not giving universal instruction. Furthermore, his instructions to the church in Ephesus were out of concern for their evangelistic witness. However, Paul did affirm women’s right to learn and be instructed. He instructed how it ought to be done by appealing to cultural customs, not apostolic authority or Scripture.*34*

With this agenda in mind, Belleville argues that the more difficult parts of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 are obscure but still relative to a specific temporary setting. Even the verb “to permit” is not a typical biblical prohibition. Given the use of this same verb elsewhere in the Bible, Belleville suggests that it is best to understand this particular prohibition to be a temporary restriction that is limited in scope.*35*

This limited restriction was twofold for Paul. Belleville argues that this twofold restriction contains two equal parts of the whole. One, women were not permitted to teach, and two, women were not permitted to bear authority over men. This twofold restriction is actually one and the same in Greek. What kind of teaching is not permitted? Belleville argues that we should understand the kind of teaching that is temporarily restricted by Paul by looking at the second part of the twofold restriction.*36*

Understanding of the verb authenteô, “bear authority,” is complicated. The verb is an hapax legomenon, and it is not a frequently used term outside of the New Testament. It is used outside of the New Testament in a negative way, such as “to domineer”, and its cognate forms can be translated as “murder.” Furthermore, if Paul was talking of the exercise of authority, as is found in the English translations, he would have used his normal term, exousia, or its cognate verb, exousiazô. Since he did not, we must question why. The verb form of our present text is rare, although the noun form is common. Predominantly, it was used of committing a crime or act of violence up to the Second Century A.D. It was also used in reference to taking matters into one’s own hands, to exercise mastery over, and to hold absolute control over someone or something. From the Second Century B.C. through the First Century A.D., the idea of exercising authority is not attested for this verb. If we are to take the verb in the sense of authority, then we have to take it in terms of holding control or mastery over another, which is how the Vulgate and early Latin versions understand the verb.*37*

Belleville appeals to Greek syntax to demonstrate that the two verbs are paired together in a specific way. The use of the neither/nor construction in Greek is important. It can be used to pair synonyms, antonyms, or closely related ideas. At other times it can be used to define a related purpose or goal, to move from the general to the particular, or to define a natural progression of related ideas. Since teaching and authentein are not synonyms, antonyms or closely related ideas, we can be sure that we are not dealing with such pairs. We do not have closely related ideas, unless we take the verb to mean “exercise authority”, which is not attested during the time leading up to and through the First Century A.D., nor do we have the movement from the general to the particular. What fits well is the neither/nor Greek construction defining a related purpose or a goal, where the goal of teaching is to dominate or get the upper hand.*38*

Belleville appeals to the structure of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, noting a parallelism in vv. 8-12. According to Belleville, men are addressed first; they are instructed to pray by lifting up holy hands and without anger. Women are addressed next; they should pray in appropriate attire and without attempting to teach a man in a dictatorial way. The first part of both is how they should pray in their appearance. The second part deals with the attitude, and it is a prohibition against anger and contention.*39*

Belleville suggests that there could be a possible influence from the cult of Artemis in the teachings of the false teachers. It is possible that within the false teaching the women were being encouraged to usurp authority as teachers over the men, since the cult believed that the female was superior to the male. However, this goes against the creation order, in which neither male nor female are to dominate the other. Paul appears to be correcting the false teaching and to be attempting to bring them back into mutual submission to each other.*40*

David Scholer focuses on 1 Timothy 2:15 as being not only the climax of the text (2:8-15), but also as the key to understanding the text as a whole. Verse 15 is linked with the preceding verses with the conjunction, de, and it depends on the previous verse to supply the subject for its opening verb. Paul said that women will be saved through childbirth, provided that they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. This identifies that women were identified among the saved through fulfilling the social norms of the Greco-Roman culture during the First Century A.D. in terms of maternal and domestic roles expected of them. This concern for propriety exists earlier in the passage. In v. 9, Paul addressed women’s attire. His instruction was concerned with women’s domestic role according to the contemporary culture.*41*

Scholer looks at the structure of the entire passage and not just at the last verse. First Timothy 2:8 instructs men to pray with the proper posture and attitude. Prayer was the preceding theme from 2:1-7, and it is clear that the context is in the church. The instructions for women’s dress is unqualified, but it is similar to 2:15 in that it uses the social norm for decency so that God’s word is not discounted. Furthermore, we find that Paul’s instructions for women’s attire was not different from the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultural norms. In fact, rejecting outward appearance was part of wifely submission in the First Century A.D. A woman who adorned herself with gold, pearls, and expensive clothing was proclaiming sexual infidelity in that culture. Paul’s thought progression moved from women’s adornment to submission in vv. 9-12. Adornment and submission were two sides of the same coin in Paul’s culture. Therefore, the instructions given in vv. 11-12 must be understood in light of vv. 9-10.*42*

According to Scholer, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 comports well with the generally expected behavior of women in the First Century A.D. These verses focus on honorable behavior, as do vv. 9-10 and v. 15. In 1 Timothy 2:11-12, we have instructions being given to meet the needs of a particular situation. We can be sure that these verses are not a universal command because the immediate context of 2:9-15 and the larger context of 1 and 2 Timothy is dealing with the issue of false teaching. The false teaching in Ephesus had women as a particular focus and encouraged them to radically challenge appropriate social behavior. As a result, the situation merited Paul’s instructions in vv. 11-12. Furthermore, the climax of the immediate context, v. 15, indicates that the paragraph is situational, so what precedes it in the same paragraph must also be situational.*43*

After looking at 1 Timothy 2:8-12, Scholer turns to Paul’s allusions to Genesis 2-3 in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. Scholer reports that these allusions have been thought by some to clearly indicate, by an appeal to creation ordinances, women are inferior to men and are required to submit to their husbands and not teach or have authority. In other words, they look at the allusions as proof for universal application in 1 Tim. 2:8-15. However, alluding to Old Testament texts does not intrinsically give Paul’s instructions a universal intent. Furthermore, only v. 13 is part of the creation ordinance. What we find in v. 14 deals with the first sin, which is not to be confused with creation. Elsewhere, Paul looked before the sin of Eve to Genesis 1 to argue for the mutuality, not hierarchy, between man and woman (cf. Galatians 3:28).*44*

Scholer argues that Paul was selective in his use of Genesis 1-3 and Eve in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. However, Paul elsewhere attributed sin and death to Adam (cf. Rom. 5:12-14), and in another instance he used Eve to teach against false teaching. According to Scholer, the facts show that Paul used whatever best fit his points. Paul often used other arguments to support his own points. This passage is in keeping with the rest of Paul’s tendencies. Therefore, 1 Timothy 2:13-14 functions for Paul as an explanatory argument to support the points he made in vv. 9-12.*45*

Belleville, Scholer, and others argue that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is not a timeless restriction. They emphasize that the letter was written for a specific need to a specific people in a specific location during a specific moment in time. They also argue by means of syntactical, lexical and form analysis to demonstrate that the teaching restricted is a kind of teaching that attempts to domineer or dominate. They demonstrate that Paul was not contradicting himself because his timeless teachings were not reversed in the specific instructions he gave for the situation he was dealing with. Paul still affirmed women’s participation in prayer alongside of men, but it was to be done in a culturally acceptable and fitting way. According to these scholars, this text is neither negative nor timeless.

Conclusion

Scholars like Belleville, Keener, Liefeld, Fee, Marshall, and Scholer appeal to the cultural setting and evangelical purpose of Paul when dealing with those seemingly negative and misogynistic passages of his letters. They typically demonstrate that Paul wrote letters for specific situations, and therefore his letters must be understood in light of those specific situations to which he wrote. Their basic argument suggests that whenever we can determine Paul’s instructions (or restrictions) to be tied to a specific setting, their literal (word-for-word or face value) understanding must be tied to the specific setting and not perceived to be a universal truth or timeless instruction. In their view, whenever Paul appeals to culture, so far as we can tell, we need to interpret those appeals for their cultural meaning and value.*46* By following such a method, in their arguments these scholars have demonstrated that Paul neither contradicted himself nor possessed a misogynist view.

For these scholars, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has a high view of women, where Paul understands their rights and upholds them, but he asks them to give them up for the cause of the gospel. In 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, they argue, Paul was affirming the right of women to learn, but he was giving helpful instructions how they were to go about learning. These scholars argue that Ephesians 5:21-33 is an exhortation for wives to purposefully choose to submit to their husbands for the sake of the gospel. 1 Timothy 2:8-15, according to these scholars, instructs women to dress appropriately so that the gospel would not be discounted, and prohibits women from teaching in a domineering way. Therefore, in their view, Paul is seen to have a positive view of women. He was not a misogynist. In these passages, he upholds women’s rights, affirms their abilities, but pleads for them to take on specific instructions for the sake of the gospel. These passages further compliment the positive passages, such as Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 16, 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, and others previously mentioned. Paul did not contradict himself, and according to these scholars, he had a positive perspective of women.

Bibliography

Belleville, Linda. “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15.” Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis, and Gordon Fee, ed. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005.

__________. Women Leaders and the Church: Three crucial questions. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.

Fee, Gordon. “Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.” Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis, and Gordon Fee, ed. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005.

Keener, Craig. “Learning in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.” Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis, and Gordon Fee, ed. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005.

__________. “Man and Woman.” Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin, Daniel Reid, ed. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

__________. Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and women’s ministry in the letters of Paul. 7th printing. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.

Liefeld, Walter. “Women, Submission & Ministry in 1 Corinthians.” Alvera Mickelsen, ed. Women, Authority & the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Marshall, I. Howard. “Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33.” Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis, and Gordon Fee, ed. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005.

Scholer, David. “1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry.” Alvera Mickelsen, ed. Women, Authority & the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

__________. “Women in Ministry.” Selected Articles on Hermeneutics and Women and Ministry in the New Testament. Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, 2005.





*1*Linda Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church: Three crucial questions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 153-4.
*2*Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church, 126.
*3*Ibid., 126-7.
*4*Ibid., 127. Cf. also Gordon Fee, “Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” ed. Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothius, and Gordon Fee, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy (Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005), 143-5. Fee’s argument is similar to Belleville’s.
*5*Ibid., 128.
*6*Ibid., 129.
*7*Ibid., 130. For a fuller treatment than the brief summary given here, cf. Belleville, and for a similar discussion and conclusion regarding Paul’s use of “head,” cf. Walter Liefeld, “Women, Submission & Ministry in 1 Corinthians,” ed. Alvera Mickelsen, Women, Authority & the Bible (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 139-41.
*8*Ibid., 130-1.
*9*Craig Keener, “Man and Woman,” ed. Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin, Daniel Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 585. Cf. also Liefeld, “Women, Submission & Ministry in 1 Corinthians,” Women, Authority & the Bible, 141-3. Liefeld demonstrates that women who publicly revealed themselves brought disgrace upon themselves. He argues that Paul was attempting to prevent social criticism for the benefit of the gospel.
*10*Craig Keener, Paul Women and Wives: marriage and women’s ministry in the letters of Paul, 7th printing (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2007), 25.
*11*Keener, Paul Women and Wives, 29-30.
*12*Keener, “Man and Woman,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 586. Cf. also Fee, “Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy, 155-8. Fee argues similarly, saying that Paul recognizes that the women have rights, but he instructs them to give them up at times for the sake of the gospel.
*13*Liefeld, “Women, Submission and Ministry in 1 Corinthians,” Women, Authority & the Bible, 136.
*14*Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church, 155.
*15*Ibid., 157.
*16*Ibid., 157-8.
*17*Ibid., 158-9.
*18*Ibid., 159-61. Cf. also David Scholer, “Women in Ministry,” Selected Articles on Hermeneutics and Women and Ministry in the New Testament (Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, 2005), 102-3. Scholer’s discussion is similar to Belleville’s, but offers some more refuting points towards the opposition. For Keener’s point that Paul is in fact silencing a specific form of speech, regardless of what kind of speech it was that he was silencing, cf. “Man and Woman,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 590.
*19*Ibid., 161-2. Cf. also Craig Keener, “Learning in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,” ed. Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis, and Gordon Fee, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy (Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005), 169.
*20*Ibid., 162.
*21*Keener, “Learning in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,” Discovering Biblical Equality, 165-6. Also, cf. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 82.
*22*Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 82.
*23*Ibid., 170-1.
*24*Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church, 118.
*25*Ibid., 119-20.
*26*Ibid., 125. Cf. also I. Howard Marshall, “Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33,” ed. ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis, and Gordon Fee, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy (Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005), 198-9.
*27*Ibid., 125-6. Cf. also Marshall, “Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33,” Discovering Biblical Equality, 199. Marshall emphasizes the unusual support that the two analogies have to justify Paul’s instruction to the husbands to love their wives.
*28*Keener, “Man and Woman,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 587-8. Also, cf. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 140-1.
*29*Ibid., 588.
*30*Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 167.
*31*Keener, “Man and Woman,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 588.
*32*Marshall, “Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33,” Discovering Biblical Equality, 195-6.
*33*Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church, 165.
*34*Ibid., 168-70. Cf. also David Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry,” ed. Alvera Mickelsen, Women, Authority & the Bible (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 199-200. His treatment agrees with Belleville’s.
*35*Ibid., 172-3.
*36*Ibid., 173-5.
*37*Ibid., 175-6. Cf. also Linda Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” ed. Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis, and Gordon Fee, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy (Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005), 209-10. In this article, Belleville demonstrates by means of bullet lists the way the older and a few newer translations of 1 Timothy 2:12 render authentein, which is along the lines of “domineer.” On more information regarding authenteô, cf. Belleville,”Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” Discovering Biblical Equality, 212-6. Cf. also Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry,” Women, Authority & the Bible, 204-5, and Keener, “Man and Woman,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 591.
*38*Ibid., 176-7.
*39*Ibid., 177.
*40*Ibid., 177-9.
*41*Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry,” Women, Authority & the Bible, 196-8. Scholer notes that this concern is well-attested throughout the Pauline corpus.
*42*Ibid., 200-2. Cf. also Keener, “Man and Woman,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 590. Keener demonstrates the progression or development of Paul’s argument, ultimately emphasizing that both men and women were involved in contentious behavior. He reports that the women who were wearing the heads with their hair uncovered were possibly perceived by other women to be contentious and seductive, which led Paul to put an end to it.
*43*Ibid., 202-4.
*44*Ibid., 208. Cf. also Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:8-15,” Disc