One of the assignments I did for LBS was on the thorny issue of the apostle Paul’s teaching on women wearing veils while prophesying in church as well as his apparent prohibition against women teachers in the letter to Corinthians chapter 11 & 14.
It’s important to note that among the Gentiles in the first century – “It is more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered and men with their heads uncovered” Plutarch, (1st century A.D.)
So it was among the Jews. “What transgresses Jewish custom? If she goes out with her head uncovered…” (Ketuboth 7.6)
Paul made some theological arguments for wearing the veil:
• He appeals to a divine order in creation
• The order of relationship between man and woman is like the relationship between Christ and man, God and Christ
• In Christ, man and woman have equal worth and dignity, but different roles
He also made some cultural arguments for wearing the veil:
• Unveiling is a public dishonor and shameful in the society of his time
• The analogy from nature teaches that a head covering is fitting, or proper
• There is no other practice in the other churches
Application: Even if we do away with the cultural expression of wearing veil, the biblical principle it expresses is still relevant today. Some Brethren churches believe that the principle needs to be expressed by women wearing something i.e. hat, cloth, etc. not necessarily a veil.
What does it mean to have a veil as “authority on her head”: 2 possible views
- Refers to new authority given to women to pray and prophesying in community worship (Hooker)
- Refers to submission to male leadership when women pray and prophesy in community worship (Shreiner). This view seems to fit context of divine order of relationships in creation
Apparent contradiction: Women are allowed to prophecy and pray with veil, but here in chapter14, they are forbidden from speaking.
How do we reconcile this? 5 possible solutions
1 Paul grudgingly allowed women to prophesy
2 Disruptive chattering in the assembly is forbidden
3 Verse 34 – 35 is later addition by someone else
4 “A local problem” where women insist to contribute more and fall into heresies
5 The prohibition refers only to the women’s passing judgment on prophetic oracles
Gordon Fee gave three reasons why Paul never wrote this prohibition
• Early manuscripts put this passage after verse 40, instead of verse 33
• Verse 33 flows better with verse 36, so the passage sounds awkward here
• Other Pauline passages emphasize that there is no difference between man and woman in Christ
C. K. Barrett had some reservations about Fee’s theory because
• In fact, no manuscripts omit these verses altogether
• Early Western Manuscripts are aware of the placement of the passage after verse 33 (as a marginal note)
• Most manuscripts place it after verse 33
D A Carson pointed out further that
• As a rule of textual criticism, the more difficult reading is preferable, because scribes tend to smoothen out the flow.
Fee also ignored possibility of reconciliation
• For example, “Not allowed to speak” is not an absolute prohibition against all speech
• While man and woman have equal dignity, they have different roles (like the Trinity)
Is Paul against disruptive chatter during worship?
• But why does Paul ban all women from talking when only some women are noisy?
• Were there no noisy men?
• It’s hard to believe that ‘only women and all women’ in the Corinthian church were noisy, fall into heresies or uneducated
• Worse still, these interpretations make Paul’s prohibition sexist because he didn’t address noisy, heretical or uneducated men
The most probable interpretation of Paul's prohibition refers only to the women’s passing judgment on prophetic oracles as church-recognized teaching authority over men for the following reasons:
• Paul appeals to the law, i.e. creation order in Genesis
• The verses fit preceding flow of Chapter 14 about ‘evaluating prophecies’ and church order
• Consistent with 1 Timothy 2:11
• Men and women have complementary roles to play in serving and worshiping God
It’s important to note that among the Gentiles in the first century – “It is more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered and men with their heads uncovered” Plutarch, (1st century A.D.)
So it was among the Jews. “What transgresses Jewish custom? If she goes out with her head uncovered…” (Ketuboth 7.6)
Paul made some theological arguments for wearing the veil:
• He appeals to a divine order in creation
• The order of relationship between man and woman is like the relationship between Christ and man, God and Christ
• In Christ, man and woman have equal worth and dignity, but different roles
He also made some cultural arguments for wearing the veil:
• Unveiling is a public dishonor and shameful in the society of his time
• The analogy from nature teaches that a head covering is fitting, or proper
• There is no other practice in the other churches
Application: Even if we do away with the cultural expression of wearing veil, the biblical principle it expresses is still relevant today. Some Brethren churches believe that the principle needs to be expressed by women wearing something i.e. hat, cloth, etc. not necessarily a veil.
What does it mean to have a veil as “authority on her head”: 2 possible views
- Refers to new authority given to women to pray and prophesying in community worship (Hooker)
- Refers to submission to male leadership when women pray and prophesy in community worship (Shreiner). This view seems to fit context of divine order of relationships in creation
Apparent contradiction: Women are allowed to prophecy and pray with veil, but here in chapter14, they are forbidden from speaking.
How do we reconcile this? 5 possible solutions
1 Paul grudgingly allowed women to prophesy
2 Disruptive chattering in the assembly is forbidden
3 Verse 34 – 35 is later addition by someone else
4 “A local problem” where women insist to contribute more and fall into heresies
5 The prohibition refers only to the women’s passing judgment on prophetic oracles
Gordon Fee gave three reasons why Paul never wrote this prohibition
• Early manuscripts put this passage after verse 40, instead of verse 33
• Verse 33 flows better with verse 36, so the passage sounds awkward here
• Other Pauline passages emphasize that there is no difference between man and woman in Christ
C. K. Barrett had some reservations about Fee’s theory because
• In fact, no manuscripts omit these verses altogether
• Early Western Manuscripts are aware of the placement of the passage after verse 33 (as a marginal note)
• Most manuscripts place it after verse 33
D A Carson pointed out further that
• As a rule of textual criticism, the more difficult reading is preferable, because scribes tend to smoothen out the flow.
Fee also ignored possibility of reconciliation
• For example, “Not allowed to speak” is not an absolute prohibition against all speech
• While man and woman have equal dignity, they have different roles (like the Trinity)
Is Paul against disruptive chatter during worship?
• But why does Paul ban all women from talking when only some women are noisy?
• Were there no noisy men?
• It’s hard to believe that ‘only women and all women’ in the Corinthian church were noisy, fall into heresies or uneducated
• Worse still, these interpretations make Paul’s prohibition sexist because he didn’t address noisy, heretical or uneducated men
The most probable interpretation of Paul's prohibition refers only to the women’s passing judgment on prophetic oracles as church-recognized teaching authority over men for the following reasons:
• Paul appeals to the law, i.e. creation order in Genesis
• The verses fit preceding flow of Chapter 14 about ‘evaluating prophecies’ and church order
• Consistent with 1 Timothy 2:11
• Men and women have complementary roles to play in serving and worshiping God
Comments