No one understood the impact of the new covenant better than Paul. We see this in his astonishing words to the Galatians:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.(Gal. 3:28-29)

If Paul fully understood the new covenant grace of God, why did he at times tell women that they must return to the old covenant place of silence before men? Certainly, this would seem like a step back into what was passing away rather than a step forward into what was accomplished in Christ.

When we put Paul in his context, we can begin to understand what Paul said and did. Paul lived in a time of transition. In fact, the whole new testament was written in a context of transition. The old covenant was passing away and the new covenant was breaking forth. For example, the new covenant temple of the Holy Spirit was present though incomplete. At the same time the old covenant temple of God was still standing in Jerusalem.

Paul dealt with Gentiles who were entering into the fullness of the new covenant unhindered by the righteousness that was according to the Law. He also dealt with Jews who were zealous for the Law. They had one foot in the old covenant and one foot in the new. Paul's task was to keep the Gentiles from rejecting the Jews because they did not share in the Gentile freedom, and to keep the Jews from being offended by the freedom the Gentiles had in Christ.

We might think that Paul had forsaken the Jews and had a heart only for the Gentiles. However, Paul very much desired his countrymen to be saved. He was very aware that the Gentiles were partaking of Israel's spiritual blessings. Consequently, at times he gave instructions that if possible the Gentile's freedom was not to become a stumbling block to the Jews.

For example, in I Corinthians eight Paul tells the church at Corinth not to eat meat sacrificed to idols if it would offend their brother. Most likely it would be Paul's countrymen that would be offended by a Gentile eating meat sacrificed to idols. Similarly, Paul said concerning himself:

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you." (I Cor 9:19-23)

This is why Paul had Timothy circumcised and why Paul himself participated in certain Jewish rituals. It was not wrong to participate in these things, but it was wrong to make these works a person's righteousness rather than the works of Christ. Paul allowed the Jews to keep their Jewishness intact. However, at the same time, Paul had to guard against the Judiazers who wanted to make the works of the Law the source of the Gentile's righteousness. So, we see Paul was walking a tightrope of almost unimaginable difficulty.

To illustrate, let's use an example from today. No Christian would say it is wrong to circumcise their child. That is a matter of personal preference we might say. Yet, if a Christian started saying that circumcising their child meant their child was going to heaven, we would be offended. A similar principle was at work in Paul's day.

Could this context in which Paul existed explain his seemingly contradictory statements and actions concerning women? It seems unlikely that a man so keenly aware of the implications of the new covenant would force women to remain under old covenant principles. Yet, at the same time Paul was deeply concerned for Israel. He knew the Jews would be offended by the Gentile's freedom. If a Jew came into an assembly led by a woman, he most assuredly would reject Christ. On the other hand, there would be purely Gentile situations where female leadership would be perfectly acceptable.

I admit I am speculating here a bit, but I think I am on pretty solid ground considering Paul's actions with issues such as meat sacrificed to idols, Timothy's circumcision, and Paul's own participation in Jewish rituals.

There are those today that say that we must go back to the way things were in the day of Paul. We must silence women in our assemblies. They must have their heads covered, and they must not partake of deep theological matters. Such thoughts show a profound eschatological misunderstanding of Paul's day. We no longer live in a day where the old covenant and the new covenant exist side by side. We live in a totally different context than the Jew/gentile context of Paul’s day.

We should not seek to go back to the transition period. The implications of the grace of God were being worked out in Paul's day, and they are still being worked out in our day. For example, Paul never dealt with the issue of slavery. In fact, there are places where he seems to endorse it. Yet, a natural consequence of the gospel is freedom and equality for all. What happened at the cross spelled doom for the concept of slavery, yet it was not until the nineteenth century that we in the United States finally grasped this concept.

Likewise, the cross changed the relationship between men and women. We are still working on this one, and we have a long way to go. Yet, the cross is the guarantee of victory.

Our cry should not be "Go back!" It should be "Go forward!" For God continues to reveal the glory of all He has accomplished through the death, resurrection of His Son in every generation.

This concludes our series on women in the church. Your comments are welcome.

Many today say that people who try to look at the new covenant woman in a new light are changing what the Bible says to fit our times and the way we think. Before we get worked up about a supposed attack on the Bible, we must realize that the paradigm of every generation for the last 2000 years has effected its interpretation of the scriptures.

Our paradigm will effect our understanding of the scriptures no matter how hard we try to avoid it. I heard that N.T. Wright, one of the worlds foremost first century historians and one of my favorite authors, tells his new students that 1/3 of what he will teach them is wrong. The trouble is he just does not know which 1/3 it is. Biblical debates would be a lot more peaceful if we all shared Wright's humility.

The challenge of our day is to think like the writers of the new testament. It is vital that we attempt to put the scriptures in their first century context. When Paul said, "Let your women keep silent in the churches," what was the context of that statement? What challenges was Paul facing when he made this command? When we seek to answer these questions, we can reach a probable explanation of Paul's seemingly contradictory words and actions.

The Jews of the first century lived in a society that was male dominated to the extreme. Even the pagan cultures that surrounded Palestine often held women in higher regard than the Jews of Jesus' day. For example, it was considered beneath a man to speak to a woman in public. Jewish men were called Sons of Abraham. Women, "The Daughters of Eve." Education was for men alone especially in theological matters. Jewish women were not allowed to sit as a disciple of a great teacher.

Men were considered more righteous than women simply because of gender. We see this is Herod’s temple. The various courts and sub courts in the Temple showed degrees of righteousness. The closer a person was allowed to the Holiest of Holies, the more righteous he was. In fact, a worshipper actually stepped up higher and higher until he reached the highest point in the structure, the Holiest of Holies. Jewish women were allowed into the second court of the temple, but they could not go beyond the court of the women. Only men could advance further. Thus flesh and blood were determinants of righteousness under the old covenant system.

New covenant grace was already breaking in during the ministry of Jesus. Those who were unacceptable according to flesh and blood were now acceptable. Women were no exception. Jesus talked to women in public. He referred to them as "Daughters of Abraham," and He allowed them to be his disciples. The Lord was absolutely revolutionary in His treatment of women.

The new covenant gift of righteousness was about to turn the entire Jewish world upside down. Suddenly, the Gentile had the same measure of righteousness as a Jew, so there could no longer be any distinction between the two. Likewise, a man now had the same measure of righteousness as a woman, so all self-righteous distinctions between men and women had to be lost. 

MORE TO COME IN PART FOUR

In our previous post we saw some of the things Paul said about women in the church. Now, let’s look at Paul in practice.

"And a certain Jew, Apollos by name, an Alexandrian by birth, a man of eloquence, being mighty in the Writings, came to Ephesus, this one was instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in the Spirit, was speaking and teaching exactly the things about the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John; this one also began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and Aquilas and Priscilla having heard of him, took him to them, and did more exactly expound to him the way of God." (Acts 18:24-26)

Here we see an example of a woman, Priscilla, obviously teaching ad exhorting a man. Moreover, in II Timothy 4:19 Paul mentions Priscilla first when greeting her and her husband. This would be a bit unusual if Priscilla had no place in ministry.

"and on the morrow Paul and his company having gone forth, we came to Caesarea, and having entered into the house of Philip the evangelist who is of the seven, we remained with him, and this one had four daughters, virgins, prophesying." (Acts 21:8-9)

Here we see the daughters of Philip prophesying. Plainly, they were not keeping silent in the presence of men.

"And I commend you to Phebe our sister being a ministrant of the assembly that is in Cenchrea that ye may receive her in the Lord, as doth become saints, and may assist her in whatever matter she may have need of you for she also became a leader of many, and of myself."

Salute Priscilla and Aquilas, my fellow-workmen in Christ Jesus. (Rom 16:1-3 YLT)

In this passage Paul speaks of Phebe,a woman, as a leader in the assembly at Cenchrea. Again he speaks of Priscilla as a fellow workman in Christ Jesus.

"salute Andronicus and Junias, my kindred, and my fellow-captives, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me." (Romans 16:7 YLT)

There is some debate over this passage. Most literal translations such as Young's and Rotherham's put a woman's name, Junias, in this verse. This would mean that Paul recognized a woman apostle. However, some translations put the name Junia, a man’s name, in place of Junias.

I Corinthians 1:11 and Acts 12:12 mention house churches residing at the houses of Chloe and Mark's mother. Whether this means they were in authority is uncertain.

"salute ye those in Laodicea brethren, and Nymphas, and the assembly in his house." (Col 4:15)

Some texts translate this "... and Nymphas, and the assembly in her house."

"Euodia I exhort, and Syntyche I exhort, to be of the same mind in the Lord; and I ask also thee, genuine yoke-fellow, be assisting those women who in the good news did strive along with me, with Clement also, and the others, my fellow-workers, whose names are in the book of life." (Phil 4:2-3)

Here we see two women evangelists Euodia and Syntyche.

Obviously, Paul recognized women who taught, prophesied to, and evangelized men. Was Paul saying one thing and then doing another? Would it surprise you that there are other places in the New Testament where Paul seemingly said one thing and then did another? For example, to the Galatians he spoke of the worthlessness of circumcision, yet in Acts 16 Paul has Timothy circumcised because of the Jews. Paul says in Philippians that he cast aside those things which he once counted as righteousness. Yet, in Acts 21 we see him going through purification rituals in the temple.

Was Paul two faced, saying one thing and then doing another? Was he hypocritical in his relationships with women? In our next posts we will see that Paul was not at all contradictory in what he said and did. In fact, there was a very important reason for his behavior. When we understand that reason, it will help us understand Paul's difficult statements concerning women.

I am adding a new section to my blog. It will be called Controversy Corner. There I will occasionally deal with issues of a more controversial nature. I have chosen to start with the role of women in the church. Am I brave or what? If you agree or disagree with me, feel free to voice your opinion. I am a strong believer that Christian fellowship is not based on doctrinal agreement. In fact, if we only fellowship with those who agree with us, I believe we have not fully understood the Kingdom of God. Therefore, if you disagree with me, I will not view you as any less of a brother or sister in Christ. I hope you will do the same for me. With that being said, let’s dive in to the topic of the place of women in the church.

Some say that there should be no argument on the subject of women in the church. After all, did not Paul clearly say that women should remain silent in assemblies, and they should not teach men? If we look at all the things Paul said about women, this principle may not be as clear as we think. In fact, as we shall see, Paul is quite contradictory on this subject.

Consequently, some people take Paul's statements that seem to be pro women and use them to back their viewpoint. Others use Paul's statements that appear to leave women in silence to back their position. Who is right? Sometimes when we are faced with a situation where the scriptures leave us confused, it is good to step back and try to get a look at the big picture. In what setting was Paul writing? What was the social and eschatological context of his statements? When we begin to discern these things, the probable interpretation of Paul's writings presents itself. We will try to get a look at this bigger picture in this post and the ones to follow. However, first let us begin by looking at some of Paul’s statements concerning women.

Let's begin with the granddaddy of them all.

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church." (I Cor. 14:34-35)

Although this appears to be a clear cut command from Paul, it actually is a troubling passage. Paul seems to contradict what he says about women in chapter eleven of first Corinthians.

"But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved."  (I Cor. 11:5)

In chapter eleven Paul speaks of women prophesying, yet he commands them to be silent in chapter fourteen. Here we see an apparent contradiction. If women were prophesying, how could they keep the command to be silent? Moreover, few today demand that women wear coverings on their heads. Yet, many of those same folks stand against a women teaching a man.

Let's take a look at another statement Paul made about women.

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control." (I Timothy 2:11-15)

Again, in I Timothy we see what appears to be a clear cut command for women to remain silent in the assembly. However, scholars debate whether Paul is talking about women teaching in the assembly or the husband/ wife relationship in this passage. Notice how Young's Literal Translation presents these scriptures.

"Let a woman in quietness learn in all subjection, and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness, for Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came, and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety."

We might be tempted to say speculating about these passages is merely trying to make them say what they clearly do not say. If these were all the dealings the Apostle Paul had with women, any argument for women teaching and participating in theological discussion would be a weak one at best. However, Paul did have interaction with women in his ministry, and when we see how he related to women, he appears to disobey his own commands! We will look at these contradictions in part two of this series.

How would you answer the following multiple choice question? (This question is a bit subjective, so it is hard to say that one answer is absolutely right, but give it a try.)

The world is

a) Worse than it has ever been

b) The same as it has always been

c) Better than it has ever been

Many doomsayers (Christians included) would have us believe that things on the earth are getting worse and worse. These same folks usually have a book to sell that tells us what is going to happen in the near future. Of course, we all want to be ready, right? Yet, there is growing evidence that “a” is the most inaccurate answer in our pop quiz.

Here are some surprising statistics from an article by Philip Yancey that appeared in the magazine “Christianity Today” a couple of years ago.

Thirty years ago 53% of the world’s adults could not read. Now it is only 20%

In the last generation the number of people worldwide suffering from malnutrition has gone from 40% world wide to 20%

Three of four people worldwide had no access to clean water. Now 3 of 4 have it.

Thirty years ago one in eight children died in the first year of life. Now it is half that.

The World Bank estimates that the number of people living in absolute poverty has been cut almost in half, and per capita income has risen almost 60%

How about our youth right here in the US? They are so bad compared to previous generations, right? Well, that might be a truism that is not true. The teenage pregnancy rate has dropped 30% in the last ten years. The abortion rate in our country has dropped by almost half. Now, here is something to shock you. Many surveys show that teenagers of today on moral issues… are more conservative than their parents!

For the first time in history we live in a world where democracy is the dominant force. In fact, since the fall of the Soviet Union, 71 nations have become free or partially free.

Recently, I saw  part of a speech by a doctor and researcher named Hans Rosling. If you answered “a” in our beginning question, the things Rosling presents may make you think again. You can view this presentation which debunks many of the myths about the third world by clicking here.

I am saying all this not to try to make you believe the world is a perfect place. We are far from that. What I am suggesting is that the money we spend on books telling us how bad things are might be better spent on helping the world become a better place. Moreover, instead of trying to predict when it will all end, perhaps we should focus on making the present better. I guarantee if we do, we will feel a whole lot better and a lot less afraid.