Paul and Women

Introduction: Was Paul a misogynist?

When the two words 'Paul' and Women' are put together in a heading, one immediately wonders, what position will this writer take? Will the author be ridiculing Paul - or praising him - for his anti-women statements and attitudes? Or will the writer be praising Paul, this first century man, for making so many positive comments about women? Paul can elicit very different responses. I have heard devoted female Christians admit how much they 'hate' Paul, and I have heard other women praise this liberator of women, slaves and Gentiles.

What do you think about "Paul and women"? Where are you on the following scale of options? Do you think Paul was:

A misogynist?

1. A social conservative who would not allow women to preach/teach or hold leadership positions in the church and who told wives to be submissive?

2. A male leader who was perfectly comfortable with women ministering and leading and sought to advance them as far as he could in his first century patriarchal context?

3. A bold "women's libber" who tirelessly fought for the substantial equality of men and women in both marriage and ministry?

In this chapter I will be arguing that Paul was neither a misogynist nor a radical liberator. You can find a text here or there that supports such claims; for example, "I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority" (1 Tim 2:12), or, "in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free" (Gal 3:28). Both views, however, are unsustainable in the light of all that Paul says in his writings. The fact that you can find a verse here or there, that can be used (out of context, usually) for either view actually demonstrates that both positions are doubtful.

What we see if we scan Paul's epistles is that he affirmed the leadership of many individual women; Tryphena and Tryphosa, "workers in the Lord" (Rom 16:12); Persis, "the beloved who has worked hard in the Lord" (Rom 16:12);

Euodia and Syntyche, "who have shared my struggle in the cause of the Gospel" (Phil 2:4-3); Nympha, who led a church in her house (Col 4:15), and most importantly Junia, an 'outstanding' woman apostle 1 (Rom 16:7). In addition, Paul speaks positively of women leading the church in prayer and prophecy (1 Cor 11:4).

If Junia is a woman apostle, like Barnabas, Apollos and Timothy, who were sent out by the risen Christ after Easter, and this is almost certainly the case, then the argument that women cannot be church leaders and that they should not teach completely collapses. Paul says apostles are "first' in the church (1 Cor 12:28) and apostles certainly taught.

These Pauline affirmations of women leaders eliminate options 1 and 2 above.

This essay will support position 3. Paul was a male leader who was perfectly comfortable with women ministering and leading, saw the liberating implications of the Gospel message, and yet accepted that in his culture the subordination of women and the institution of slavery were taken for granted.

What Paul did was begin with the status quo, accepting it at one level, yet at the same time seeking to subvert it because he believed the Gospel sets people free.

The disputed Pastoral Epistles

In the New Testament thirteen letters are attributed to Paul. They are Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 and 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; and Philemon. Most scholars do not think Paul wrote three of these epistles, the so-called Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus). They are so different in what they say that it is thought someone else must have written them some years after Paul's death. One very significant difference is that in Paul's earlier epistles he is completely affirming of women's ministry and leadership and of them speaking in church, whereas in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 he seems to forbid women from teaching in church. For those who believe women are permanently subordinated to men, this is the passage they primarily use to build their case. This, for them, is the most important text in their case. And yet most scholars think Paul did not write these words? 2

Many evangelicals and Pentecostals do not want this issue aired. They do not want ordinary church members to know that there is a big question mark over the authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. But they need to understand why Christians not of their persuasion smile when they hear them basing their opposition to women in church leadership almost entirely on 1 Timothy 2:12.

1 and 2 Timothy

What is said in 1 Timothy 2:11 is very stark. The New Revised Standard Version translates the Greek in this way: "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man; she is to keep silent". If Paul wrote these words, and we are to take them as they are translated, and no concern is given to the context in which this one verse is found then it is game, set, and match for women. They are the subordinate sex, subject to men, and they should not speak in church.

There are many problems with understanding 1 Timothy 2:11-14 in this absolutist way. To begin with, in 2 Timothy 2:2, Timothy is told What you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people [people not men] who will able to teach others as well" There are two words in Greek that can be translated 'man', anthropos and aner. Anthropos means "human being". It is not gender specific. Aner means a male person, not a female. It is gender specific. It can be translated 'man' or it can be translated "husband'. Each is legitimate and the context must determine which is correct. In 2 Timothy 2:2 Paul uses anthropos (in the plural, anthropoi) not aner. He is speaking about men and women both learning and both teaching. What this means is that translations of this verse such as given in the 1952 Revised Standard Version - "What you have heard from me before many witnesses, entrust to faithful men" — are simply wrong. In fact, this is a great verse for the pro-women view.

Then we have the problem that virtually everything said in 1 Timothy 2:8-15, the context in which verse 12 is set, has no parallels in the rest of the Bible. Nowhere else do we find men being forbidden to pray in "anger or dissent" (v 8); nowhere else do we find women singled out as needing to learn (v 11); nowhere else do we find women forbidden to teach (v 12); nowhere else do we find in the anyone told not to "usurp authority" or 'domineer' (the two possible meanings of the Greek word authentein, too often incorrectly translated simply as "to have authority over") (v 12); nowhere else do we find the fact that Genesis 2 says Adam was created 'first' taken to be of any significance (v 13); nowhere else in the whole Bible is it said that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived" (v 14). Elsewhere Paul makes Adam responsible for the sin in the world (Rom 5:12-18, 1 Cor 15:20-22). And nowhere else do we hear that women "will be saved through childbearing" (v 15).

Those who insist on women's subordination and want to exclude them from church leadership interpret 1 Timothy 2:12 in isolation from its context. They want to make this one verse normative; a universal ruling. I remember being told as a student in Bible College that "a text without a context is a pretext". The truth is that virtually every verse in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 implies an exceptional situation. If this is so then to make 1 Timothy 2:12 normative is to take it out of its context.

On reading the whole epistle we soon discover why 1 Timothy 2:8-15 says so many things not said anywhere else in the Bible. The church is under attack from false teachers (1 Tim 1:3-11, 4:1-5, 6:3-10) and women are involved (1 Tim 2:8-15, 4:7, 5:3-7, 5:9-16). In this charged and dangerous situation Paul instructs the women involved to stop teaching in a domineering way, not to put themselves first, that Adam was created first, and to remember it was Eve, a woman, who was first deceived. He "puts them down". And in verse 15, in reply to the false teachers who were forbidding marriage (1 Tim 4:3), Paul commends marriage by implication and explicitly encourages having children because this is one distinctive way women work out their salvation.

This interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 makes sense of the exceptional command in verse I that women, and women specifically, 'learn'. Paul or whoever wrote this epistle, commands the women to learn because the women he is addressing need to be instructed in "sound doctrine". His harsh command not to teach, that follows immediately, forbids them to teach because they are not properly instructed. This interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is confirmed by what is said in 2 Timothy 2:2: "faithful people", those holding "sound doctrine", men and women, should teach others.

Titus

Those who insist that women are the subordinate sex and that they should not teach men often appeal to Titus 2:3-5 where "older women" are told to be "reverent in behaviour, not to be slanderers, or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands and children, be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of their homes, and submissive to their husbands". The passage is sometimes interpreted as saying that women can only teach other women. However, that is not what the passage says. Older women are in fact simply told "to teach what is good". Their teaching naturally will be instructive to younger women. Nothing in this passage says women cannot teach in church. When we remember that in the first century almost all Christians met in small groups in homes, this teaching almost certainly took place in this home setting when men were present.

When we read this passage in the twenty first century, much of what is said sounds to us a bit cringe-worthy; very traditional. Older women are told to teach young women to manage their households, look after the children and be submissive to their husbands. But this is what we should expect if we believe the Bible is an historical document. These words speak to a first century audience where the subordination of wives was assumed, they did not work outside of the home, and they had few freedoms. Paul wants younger wives to conform to the social norms of the day, not because he thought God had placed them under men in creation, but, as he says explicitly, "so that the word of God may not be discredited". Considering that reason, the reverse is the case in our modern context: to subordinate women and restrict them to the home will almost certainly discredit the Christian faith.

In 1 Timothy 6:1 slaves likewise are asked to accept their lot in life on a pragmatic and culturally prescribed basis. They are told to be submissive "so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed". Much the same is said in Titus 2:10 and in 1 Corinthians 10:31-33. In both passages, conforming to social norms is endorsed as good principle for Christians to follow as a general rule. If Christians want to maximize their opportunities to share the Gospel, they should not knowingly cause offence by breaking everyday norms. On this basis the Pastoral Epistles advise women and slaves to accept the status quo to some extent, in the hope that by willingly restricting their freedom in Christ, the Gospel may be advanced. The writer realised that if unbelieving first century men saw women openly flouting traditional values, especially not respecting their husbands' authority over them, they would be very resistant to becoming Christians.

If we do not take the exhortations to slaves to accept their lot in life as normative for all times and cultures, then we should not take the exhortations to wives to be submissive as normative for all times. Many American evangelical and Reformed theologians in the nineteenth century did take the exhortations to slaves as normative, and thus appealed to them to justify slavery. They went to war for this cause and thousands died in the fight to uphold slavery. We now all agree that they misread the Bible. Slavery is not pleasing to God. The exhortations to slaves to be subordinate are simply practical advice for that time, not universally applicable. It is the same with the exhortations to wives to be subordinate. They are not transcultural rulings always applicable. To claim that they are based in creation while the exhortations to slaves are not is just wishful thinking. Nowhere are the exhortations to wives to be subordinate based on an appeal to Genesis chapters 1 or 2.

Now to sum up this discussion of the three disputed Pauline epistles: It seems to me that if they are not written by Paul they are irrelevant to our topic "Paul and Women". What we have discovered, however, is tha even if they are deemed to be written by Paul, these Pastoral Epistles are in fact not absolutely opposed to women ministering, teaching, or being in leadership. If this is the case, one of the main reasons for rejecting their Pauline authorship has evaporated.

What we have discovered is that they instruct/command women to learn (1 Tim 2:11); they tell men and women to teach others the faith (2 Tim 2:2) and they ask older women "to teach what is good" as this will surely help young women (Titus 2:3). This teaching very probably took place in a house church setting, and we do find that the Pastoral Epistles also affirm traditional aspects of household life at that time. 4 They do this to make sure that "the word of God is not discredited". In so doing, they are no different to the other epistles attributed to Paul.

Paul's undisputed letters

Galatians

I begin with Galatians. In this letter we find Paul's most profound positive comment about women. In Galatians 3:28, he says that "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". This verse has often been hailed as the Magna Carta of liberation.5 It is the most discussed and best known verse in the epistle to the Galatians. It speaks of the transforming power of the Gospel.

There is, however, debate over the application of these words. Some suggest that the immediate context limits what Paul says to the vertical; our relationship with God. In other words, we are all equal before God and all equally justified by faith through Jesus Christ, but we are not all equal on the horizontal level; that is in our relationships with one another. After all, it is argued, the immediate context of 3:28 is about our justification in God. Hence the conclusion is reached that Paul is only affirming spiritual equality.

To reply to this argument from the immediate context, we need to do a bit of unpacking. Paul is not saying that when we become a Christian we cease to be men or women, slave or free, Jew or Gentile (or rich or poor). What Paul is affirming is that gender, race and social standing should not divide those justified by faith in Christ. Our faith in Christ should unite us. It should see us treat each other equally.

This interpretation is compelling. We are bound to read Galatians 3:28 in the context of all that Paul says in this epistle. While the immediate paragraph context is about justification, the very conversation about justification comes out of a real life example of discrimination. In Galatians 2:11ff Paul says he rebuked Cephas/Peter because he "was not acting consistently with the truth of the Gospel". This was evident because Peter refused to eat with Gentile believers. He was not accepting them as "one in Christ" with him. In other words, Peter was discriminating against Gentile Christians by not relating to them in the same way as he related to his fellow Jewish Christians. Paul sharply rebukes Peter for this behaviour, reminding him that we have to treat each other equally on the horizontal level- we have to walk in the truth of justification. In his first century context Paul insisted that Christians should relate to Gentiles as they would fellow Jews, showing no discrimination. In the twenty first century, surely we must apply the same principle to men and women.

Yes, Galatians 3:28 does speak in the first instance of our standing before God; we are justified by faith in Christ. However, in this very epistle Paul makes it absolutely clear that our standing before God should transform our relationships with other believers, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, man or woman. Our salvation should work itself out in the church and the world in practical ways. Paul believed that the Gospel has social outcomes.6 Discrimination in the church is not pleasing to God.

1 Corinthians

Now to the Corinthian correspondence.7 1 Corinthians is the letter (after 1 Timothy that gets the most attention from those who want to limit women's ministry and leadership. It has three very important passages that refer to women and their relationship to men and the church generally: 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 (the marriage chapter); 1 Corinthians 10:31-11:16 (the head covering passage); and 1 Corinthians 14:34-38; (vomen to be silent in church and ask questions of their husbands at home.

1 Corinthians chapter 7

What exactly Paul is arguing in 1 Corinthians is not immediately apparent because he is in dialogue with some of the Corinthians, who it seems were advocating sexless marriages. If it were a phone conversation all we hear is Paul's side of it. Chapter 7 is nevertheless a hugely important chapter in any discussion of Paul and women. Twelve times in this chapter Paul asks the same things of men and women (7:2; 3; 4; 10; 12-13; 14; 16; and 32-34). 8 The implication of such even handed comments is that Paul thought that men and women in marriage were equals. Not surprisingly, those who believe Paul subordinates women in general and wives in particular virtually never discuss this chapter. The reason why they do not study 1 Corinthians 7 is because in this chapter, Paul mirrors what he says to both men and women. In doing this Paul stands in stark contrast to other men of his age. This chapter 'oozes' mutuality between men and women.

The most revolutionary example of this parallel treatment of men and women is seen in 1 Corinthians 7:4 where Paul says the husband has authority over his wife's body, only then to say that likewise the wife has authority over her husband's body. Think about that: the wife has authority over her husband's body. The Greek, Roman and Jewish worlds certainly accepted that husbands had authority over their wives in all things, especially to do with sex and families. No man - no man - ever gave a wife authority over her husband's body, not until Paul. This is really very radical teaching.

What Paul says on divorce is equally breathtaking, given the first century context. He first lays down the principle, equally binding on both men and women, "you should not separate from your spouse" Cor 7:10-11). This denies the Christian man something his culture allowed. Then Paul speaks of what to do when one party leaves, and in this discussion he gives the woman the right to divorce her husband (1 Cor 7:11, 15). Again this is unexpected. In the ancient world men divorced their wives, but women were usually not able to initiate divorce.

Towards the end of this chapter Paul gives another piece of extraordinary advice to men and women both: it may be better, if you want to serve Christ with an undivided heart, that you stay single for the sake of the Gospel (1 Cor 7:32-35). Giving women the option of choosing to stay single was again, very unusual and quite profound.

1 Corinthians 11:1-16

Those who want to keep women subordinate to men generally ignore what Paul says in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, but not what he says in 1 Corinthians chapter 11:2-16. This is a passage they emphasise, arguing that here Paul teaches that men are set over women in the church. Again, reading the passage in context is very important. The chapter really begins with what is said in 1 Corinthians 10:31-33. (Remember the chapter headings were added about 1200 years after the New Testament was written). Paul begins, "Give not offence to Jews or to Greeks, or the Church of God, just try to please everyone in everything, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage but that of many so that they may be saved". Paul makes his point loud and clear before talking about head-coverings, the length of men's hair, and the differences between men and women. As far as he is concerned the most important thing is to accommodate as much as possible to the feelings and concerns of everyone inside and outside the church (Jews, Greeks, men and women, traditionalists, non-traditionalists). To know how to do this he says, "Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1). This is the basis for his discussion of women and head coverings.

In beginning his discussion on head coverings Paul first praises the Corinthians for maintaining "the traditions just as I handed them on to you". What are these traditions the Corinthians had maintained? take it he is speaking particularly of the tradition that men and women may lead the church in prayer and prophecy as long as they dress like men and women, because this is the central issue in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. He may well also be praising them for applying his teachings on "freedom in Christ". New life in Christ brings freedom: freedom from the law; freedom from the norms and expectations of people and society; freedom to live differently; freedom to see men and women, slave and free, Jew and Gentile as all one in Christ. The Corinthians seem to have "got it"! What he is critical of, however, is their behaviour that causes offence; women leading worship with uncovered heads and men with covered heads (1 Cor 11:4-5), and men with long hair and women with short hair (1 Cor 11:14-15).

In beginning his discussion of appropriate head coverings for men and women, Paul makes a play upon the Greek word kephale which in most cases refers to the top part of the body; the head or skull. Paul is about to use the word in this literal sense, but in verse 3 he uses it metaphorically in a somewhat unclear manner. When used metaphorically the word. kephalé can refer to anything that is somehow like the head, the top part of the body. For example, the top of a doorway, the beginning of a river, a preeminent person, a ruler. When words are used as word pictures (metaphors), the context always determines the meaning. In 1 Corinthians 11:3 Paul seems to be using the word in the sense of "source' or 'origin'. Christ is the source of the human race, the man is the source of woman (Gen 2), and God the Father is the source of Christ (in his incarnation). This is confirmed in 1 Corinthians 11:8 where he speaks of woman coming from man. The suggestion that in this context Paul is teaching that man is head over (the boss) of woman and the Father is head over the Son does not fit the context and is bad trinitarian theology. As far as the Son is concerned we Christians confess him as the Lord God almighty, one with the Father and the Spirit in eternity, only subordinate and obedient in the incarnation. And why say man is head over woman and then in the next verse affirm that men and women may lead the church in prayer and prophecy?

Itis not verse 3 but verse 4 which should be highlighted. Paul commends the Corinthians because in church men and women are leading in prayer and prophecy. In the New Testament age, prophecy was usually what we would call "Spirit inspired preaching". It edified, encouraged and consoled the hearers (1 Cor 14:3), and people learned from what was said (1 Cor 14:19, 31). Paul thought this was the most important congregational ministry (1 Cor 14:1-25). No matter what else we see in 1 Corinthians 11, this passage explicitly endorses women leading and speaking in a church setting.

What Paul wants is that women lead in church in a culturally sensitive way, they cover their heads, and men lead in a culturally sensitive way; they not cover their heads. In other words, Paul wants women to lead as women and men as men. What he says after this gets a bit confusing because Paul tries to find some theological basis for this first century Corinthian contextualised cultural norm, and in each case he seems to qualify what he says. The classic example is found in verses 8-12. First Paul says man and woman are different because man was not made from woman, but woman from man, and man was not created for the sake of the woman but woman for the sake of man, words the traditionalists take to speak of the permanent subordination of woman. But then Paul corrects himself. He says "Nevertheless, in the Lord (i.e. in the new creation established by Christ) woman is not independent of man, nor man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man so now man comes from woman". The word 'nevertheless' captures his change of thought. Paul wants us to keep the big picture in mind! What he says in these words reminds us of what he said in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. Men and women are equal (though different) and both have leadership abilities given by God.

It is important not to get lost in Paul's tortuous reasoning in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. What is central and critical in this passage is the affirmation that men and women, side by side, are free to lead and speak in church gatherings. True, Paul wants first century cultural conventions maintained, and we can learn from him on this. He believed, as he clearly states in 1 Corinthians 10:31-33, that we Christians should not give unnecessary offence by how we behave. This means we may need to accept some cultural norms for the sake of the Gospel. In our age, we may need to accept the new idea that women have huge leadership potential, and that Christian women should be free to exercise their leadership gifts in church.

One final point; if 1 Timothy 2:11 absolutely forbids women from speaking and leading in church then it stands in direct contradiction to what is said in 1 Corinthians 11:4. To reply that teaching is more authoritative than prophecy is special pleading. Paul sets prophecy above teaching in importance (1 Cor 12:28). Furthermore in the New Testament as a general rule prophecy and teaching often overlap.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is another passage frequently cited by those who want to limit women's ministry and leadership. "Women should be silent in churches". Again the context in which these words are found is crucial for rightly understanding them? 9

1 Corinthians 14:26-40 is entirely about orderly behaviour in house church assemblies. In this discussion Paul three times asks certain people to be silent. He uses the same Greek word (sigao) in each case. First, he asks the tongue speakers to keep silent unless they have an interpreter (1 Cor 14:28). Next he asks the prophets who want to hold the floor to keep silent if someone else wants to prophesy (1 Cor 14:30). Finally, he asks women who are continually asking questions to keep silent. They must, he adds, subordinate themselves to the requirements of orderly church worship. The subordination required is not to husbands. If they have questions, Paul advises, they should ask "them of their husbands at home".

It is not only the literary context in which these words are found - a section where there are three commands to keep silent - but also the social context these words address which is significant. This is a small number of people meeting in a house setting. In this situation there was lots of interaction and it was easy for disorder to occur.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not telling women never to speak publicly in church; Paul has already endorsed this earlier in the same letter (1 Cor 11:4). He is simply asking them to stop asking disruptive questions in church gatherings.

"The husband is the head of the wife!"

Ephesians 5:21-33

There is one other significant passage in the Pauline letters that still needs consideration: Ephesians 5:21-6:9. A lot of what is said in this passage is echoed in Colossians 3:18-4:1. 10 These passages are often called "household codes". 11 They give advice to those living in an extended household; the husband, the wife, slaves, servants and children. I will focus on Ephesians 5:21-33 because it says the most on the husband-wife relationship and this is the issue we are discussing.

To understand this passage rightly, the historical and cultural context in which Paul writes must be fully appreciated. In the world in which Paul ministered, most women were not educated, they were subject all of their life to a man, whether father, husband, or guardian, and they could not support themselves by going out to work.

Paul begins his discussion on relationships in the extended family, starting with the marriage relationship, by enunciating the primary Christian principle: "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). This is undeniably where Paul begins this whole section, because verse 22 does not have a verb. The verb ('be subject') has to be carried over from verse 21.

To advocate mutual subordination was certainly revolutionary. Virtually everyone in Paul's day thought that women, children and slaves should be subordinate to those set over them, and no one thought a man should subordinate himself to his peers or his social inferiors (such as women and slaves). It was Paul's master, Jesus, who introduced this idea into the world.

Then in three short verses Paul addresses wives, telling them to be subject to their husbands because the husband is the kephale/head of the wife (Eph 5:22-24). Kephale was discussed above, and in this context the metaphor is likely acknowledging that husbands are indeed the source of their wives. In that day and age, the husband was the source of provision, of protection, of seed to bear a family.

Some will argue that in this context kephalē could mean "head over", because Paul asks wives to subordinate to their husbands. In this case the 'headship' of the husband reflects the realities of the fallen world, not some creation ideal. In Genesis 3:16 the rule of the man over the women is seen entirely as a consequence of the sin of Adam and Eve, something not pleasing to God. When these words were first read, not one hearer would have been startled or offended, even if they interpreted the metaphor as "head over" rather than 'source'. Paul might simply have been asking wives to accept what was the prevailing cultural norm - willingly limiting their freedom in Christ, for the sake of never hindering the advance of the gospel in the community. Next Paul addresses husbands, in this instance in eight verses. What he asks of husbands, no one before had ever asked. He does not say, "you husbands should also subordinate yourselves to your wives", although he implies this in 5:21. He is too good a communicator to be so direct. Instead, he says to husbands, "love your wives like Christ loved the church and gave himselt up for her" (v 25). How did Christ love the church? By dying for the church. Then he says, "husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies" (v 28). This is radical. Then he quotes Genesis 2:24, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh".

The creation story is quoted not to subordinate the wife to her husband, but to highlight the profound unity of the husband and the wife. In marriage they become one. Hierarchical ordering is not envisaged. Four times in these verses Paul calls on the husband to love his wife, using the noblest word for love, agapao. This is self-giving love. It is exemplified in Christ dying for us on the cross. Paul it seems was the first man in human history to ask husbands to love their wives in this way.

What Paul is doing in this passage is subverting the prevailing cultural understanding of marriage. He is turning on its head how the Ephesians thought of marriage. Paul asks men to give their life for their wife; to love her like Christ loved the church by dying for her. This is a Christian vision of marriage never enunciated before. When those present heard what Paul said to husbands, many would have been startled and offended.

If we follow the trajectory Paul set as a first century man in his patriarchal culture, what this text prescribes for us today in an egalitarian culture is afully co-equal marriage where the primary Christian principle rules, submission to one another in agape-love.

Conclusion

Paul had to minister in the culture in which he found himself. What he tried to do was start where people were, and the gently subvert the norms and traditions of the society. He accepted the need for 'household codes of conduct but he did not limit what he taught to the established norms of his day. He infused the codes with new meaning, with more challenges, with more equality. He wanted Christ's followers willingly go further than the norms and practices of society. Yes, keep the ones that need to be kept for the sake of the Gospel. Yes, voluntarily limit your freedom in Christ for the sake of the Gospel. But at the same time: go further than you need to, in loving and serving one another!

After all, there is no ranking in the community Christ founded, the church. We are one in Christ, and so "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female". This article was first published in Giles, K. and Cooper-Clarke, D. (2017) Women & Men: One in Christ: CBE National Conference ‘Better together 2017’, Melbourne, Australia Denise Cooper-Clarke & Kevin Giles, editors. Melbourne, VIC: Christians for Biblical Equality.

---

1. If your translation of the Bible has Junia spelt with an's' on the end, (Junias), then the men who translated your Bible have given Junia a sex change! There is no such name as Junias. Social conservatives also argue that Junia was not an apostle herself, only a woman well Known to the apostles. The definitive study showing that Junia. a woman, was an apostle is E.J. Epp, Junia, the First Woman Apostle, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005

2. If Paul did not write these letters, it means they are not relevant to our topic (Paul and Women). Of course, even if that is the case, if one is interested in: "What the New Testament teaches about women", then of course, they are still important to consider.

3. The Greek word authentein is used nowhere else in the New Testament. It is an exceptional word suggesting an exceptional situation. The usual word used for 'authority' is exousia. Here Paul chooses a very rare and stark word that implies some kind of grasping for authority; exercising authority autonomously, or in a domineering way. The definitive study of this word is found in Philip Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009, 361-398

4. See more on the household codes below in this chapter.

5. R C Kroeger and C C Kroeger, / I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking / Timothy 2:11-15. In Light of Ancient Evidence, Michigan: Baker, 1992, p. 39, say, "Gender, age, social condition and racial considerations are all swept away by Galatians 3:28."

6. For a detailed exploration of both sides of this debate and why the limited contextual approach is mistaken, see my "Galatians 3:28: liberating for women, or of limited application?" Expository Times. 123.6 (2012), pp. 272-277.

7. I would place 1 Corinthians around 56 AD and written from Ephesus (about Acts 19:10). 2 Corinthians was probably written from Troas about 57 A.D. (Acts 20:l), assuming Paul went from Ephesus to Corinth via Troas. See 2 Corinthians 2:12-13 and 1 Corinthians 16:5-6.

8. The definitive study on this chapter is given by Philip Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, pp. 105-108.

9. It needs to be noted that it would seem that some of the earliest manuscripts did not have these verses. Thus some argue that Paul did not write them. They were added by a later scribe who was copying Paul's epistle by hand. See on this Philip Payne, Man and Woman; One In Christ, 217-270

10. Both these letters were probably written about 61 or 62 AD while Paul was in his Roman imprisonment recorded in Acts 28.

11. The Apostle Peter has something similar in 1 Peter 1:13 - 3:7

---

Jim Reiher has been an ambulance officer, a high School teacher, a lecturer in Theology and Biblical Studies, a training coordinator for Urban Neighbours of Hope (UNOH, and he currently works for ACCESS ministries as a regional service manager, overseeing the work of school chaplains in over 70 state schools in and around Melbourne. Jim is the author of The Eye of the Needle: Discipleship and Wealth, James: A Social Justice Commentary; The Book of Acts: A social justice devotional commentary; Women, Leadership and the Church; and a novel, The Sunburnt Circus.

We highly recommend purchasing Jim's book: Women, Leadership and the Church. Contact him to purchase one for $10 + $15 postage (within Australia) - or find on Kindle. jamesreiher@gmail.com