Paul on Women, Sex and Dress

In Jesus's day, there were "prohibitions against teaching women Torah." ("Women in Judaism," Wikipedia accessed 6/4/2010).

Orthodox Jews still struggle with their oral law prohibition against teaching women the Torah. (Think of the movie Yentyl.) They try to find ways to limit the rule or have loopholes. See Rabbi Kahn's "Jewish Education for Women."

Jesus repeatedly challenged this gender restriction. He encouraged women to learn from Him the Way of the Kingdom despite custom being to the contrary. Jesus clearly elevated women to equality with men as able to be taught God's principles, e.g., talking to the Samaritan woman by the well; his relations to Mary and Martha (Luke 8:38), etc.

Paul emphasizes, however, oral law principles nowhere else uttered in the Bible that restrain women's full and equal role as disciples in the church. Thus, these restraints solely rest on Paul's authority.

Now, before I mention Paul principles, I wish to declare that if God truly demanded men to avoid touching women, and that women must not speak out at church with a question and not teach or have authority over men, or women must wear a head-covering in church, or men should not do so, I would obey.

But all these notions appear from only one voice in the entire "Bible." And as discussed below, they are often at odds with inspired Scripture. Why so late in God's self-revelation would Paul uniquely be given a set of commands seemingly so at odd with equality and kindness that Jesus offered to women? Paul's words read like unique ordinances that nowhere else have any analog in the true Bible. So what is the impression left by Paul's words?

The Ugly Impression of Paul's Words

A defender of Paul, Henry Chadwick, in his bookThe Enigma of St. Paul. The Ethel M. Wood Lecture delivered before the University of London on 27 February 1968 (London: The Athlone press, 1969) at 8 puts it succinctly:

The main liberal rationalist accusation against the apostle has been that he is principally
responsible for introducing into the stream of Christian history a deep-seated fear and hostility
towards sex. And it should be conceded at once that there are passages that make it easy and natural to interpret him as a misogynist celibate, with an obsession about women’s hair so acute that he demands the wearing of hats in church, and with the strongest views of female subordination. ‘It is good that a man should not touch a woman.’ ‘The women must keep silence in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.’ And so on.

As to marriage itself, contrast Jesus who speaks of celibacy as something for some but not all disciples. It is not a command or even an exhortation. Matt. 19:12. But in 1 Cor. 10:27-28, Paul advises those not married to stay that way: "Are you bound to a wife?  Do not seek to be free.  Are you free from a wife?  Do not seek marriage." While Paul then says it is not a sin to marry, he clearly says in the literal Greek "do not seek a wife." (How many Paulinist churches preach all Paul taught, like "do not seek marriage" if you are unmarried? NONE IN MY EXPERIENCE!)

As to other points of tension between Paul and Jesus, we will expose them as we next discuss specific verses.

Head Coverings: Does God Command This?

Paul stated that the head covering by a woman was to be observed not for cultural reasons but because of the angels (1 Corinthians 11:10). “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

Paul then says in 1 Corinthians 11:5: “Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…” Hence, Paul makes wearing a head covering a MORAL command.

By contrast, a man was not to wear one. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:4 says: “Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head.”

Some insist this covering is simply long hair. That is not the sense of the next verse, and would ignore the fact Judaism then and today had a tradition of head coverings for women:

"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn [i.e., head shaved] but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." (1 Cor. 11:6.)

The reference is to a covering, not hair. The mention of being shorn of hair is a contrast. Paul is saying if it is shameful to have no hair, it is just as shameful not to wear a head covering.

Where did Paul get this notion in favor of women wearing a head covering? It is not in the Bible. Not once! (Sarah veiled herself in Genesis 20:16 but there is no command.)

The customs within Judaism. It does not even appear in the oral law but in customary practices still alive today:

[S]ome married Orthodox women cover their hair with a wig, hat, or scarf. ("Women in Judaism," Wikipedia.)

Thus, it appears, unless Paul is a proven prophet speaking always under inspiration, that Paul lays down commands of modesty from customary habits nowhere found in the Law or Scripture. Paul elevates them to moral commands. And Paul's commands are in accord with the gender prohibitions that suppressed women's full participation in religious life that Jesus clearly was breaking down. Hence, it appears that the spirit of Paul's command on head coverings (a) lacks corroboration from inspired Scripture and (b) is at odds with Jesus' deliberate breaking of the gender restraints on women.

Must Women Not Inquire At Church?

In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

In 1Ti 2:11-12, we similarly read: "Let a woman learn in silence, in all subjection. But I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, rather, to be in silence."

Does anyone find this puzzling for reasons other than the odd - "funky" - subject matter? First, the Law has no such command. But if this is the "law" to be obeyed, isn't this the same Paul who says the Law is abrogated? Could he not keep things straight in his head?

Paulinists explain these incongruities by claiming Paul is not referring to the Torah-Law given Moses, but to the ordinances of the apostles. (Nesch.) However, Paul calls it by the Greek word for the Law of Moses -- NOMOS. When Paul meant "ordinances," he used that alternative expression often. No, Paul says the Torah (nomos in Greek) teaches a woman must keep quiet in church. So what NOMOS did Paul mean?

What Paul meant truly was the Pharisee's oral LAW (also known as the TORAH) was valid. The Pharisees taught that on the Mountain with God, Moses was given an Oral Torah that was not written down. The Pharisees claimed it was as much a part of TORAH as the written Torah. (The Sadduccees and Samaritans rejected this.) Thus, this oral TORAH in Greek was also referred to as NOMOS by Pharisees (like Paul) who saw no distinction between it and the written TORAH.

It was the oral law which restrained women to not speak up in religious assemblies. Women were then, and still today in Orthodox synagogues, forced to sit separately from the men (and obviously had to keep quiet).

What justified this separation? It logically followed from the oral torah that women were not to be taught Torah/the Law. (This was the principle Jesus challenged by teaching women like Martha and Mary.) Hence, women in the Judaism of that day could not engage in any thought-discussion in religious assemblies about the Law. That was reserved to the men whom the Rabbis addressed as the men sat in the men-forward section of the synagogue.

Again, unless Paul is a prophet, he is relying obviously on extra-Biblical principles. Paul was enforcing gender prohibitions that Jesus was trying to break down. Jesus obviously intended that women could participate equally with men in religious discussions. This is why He openly dialogued with them on such topics. Jesus must have intended women could fully participate in assemblies of worship.

Women Cannot Teach or Have Authority over Men?

Paul in 1 Tim. 2:12 says: "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man." Calvin said this meant: "Women are by nature to obey men. Men are by nature born to govern and control women." (Trombley, 1985 at 71.)

Even dogmatic pro-Paul people admit they do not believe this is a command they must follow:

I don't see where Jesus told women to do this so no - I do not abide by this. Paul is speaking regarding the customs of the day. Men were steeped in their religious practices and pride while women are of a much more receptive heart. It is for the sake of the man's religion and pride that Paul says such things. Not because it is a requirement of our Lord. (Emily 8/16/2010, at this blog.)

Other Paul-followers try to weasle around its meaning, claiming women can teach the faith, but only men are permitted to "regularly" teach the foundations of the faith. (Dan Doriani, Women and Ministry: What The Bible Teaches (Good News Publishers, 2003) at 177.) But Paul says "I do not allow a woman to teach" -- end of sentence. It does not say "sometimes" but not "regularly" women can teach. So Paul-followers do everything to skirt the obligation by means clearly outcome-determinative.

I have to admit that as a man, it is very appealing to hear these 'commands.' How all men would love if Paul indeed were inspired!

But unfortunately for Paul's inspiration and my male ego, Paul's command that women cannot have authority over men or teach men is at odds wiith the book of Judges in the Bible. God made Deborah (a woman) a Judge over Israel. She also taught ALL the people as a Prophetess. God also blessed her in battles. (Judges chs. 4-5.) So God through true prophetic writings gives us an approving depiction of a woman's role totally at odds with Paul's prohibition.

Who is right? God or Paul? Who do you follow?

Even Paul seemed not to know. Paul, apparently inconsistent with himself, said Junia was an "apostle." (Rom. 16:7.) Did she never teach a man? It does not seem likely.

Regardless, if Paul is unauthorized in his command, and in conflict with God's word, what implications does this have?

We go back to Jesus. That simple.

Female Pastors?

The issue of Paul's prohibition on women teaching includes a prohibition from women serving as pastors but is much broader. Paul also prohibits a woman having any authority over a man, like Deborah, the Judge, had over Israel. (Someone better tell God that He got it wrong with Deborah.) This means Paul gave two reasons why a woman cannot be a pastor.

But does Paul's anti-Biblical doctrine mean we can have women pastors? Nope! It means we follow Jesus. And Jesus said there is not to be such authority of ANY of us, male or female, over any other Christian! If Jesus is the SOLE TEACHER (Matt. 23:6-11) and SOLE PASTOR (John 10:16), then none of us can take such titles. We may teach and preach, but only what Jesus teaches and preaches, keeping Him as the foremost teacher and preacher/pastor.

And to circumvent Jesus' commands by calling a single powerful church-leader by the title of a "minister" or "servant" is a completely dishonest skirting of Jesus' meaning. It vaunts form over substance. Moreover, Jesus was clear -- there is "one teacher" and "one pastor." Jesus Himself.

Thus, can women teach men? Of course, Deborah did with God's full blessing! She taught them God's word, even prophesying God's word.

But we cannot call anyone a teacher or pastor. This means we cannot give a leadership title with power over a spiritual flock to a single "pastor" or "teacher," male or female! Both roles are Jesus's role, the King of Kings. No individual Christian is authorized to excercise either role over the flock.

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise AUTHORITY upon them. But IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your servant." (Matt. 20:25-26.)

"They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. "But do not be called Rabbi [i.e., teacher]; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers/brethren [adelphoi]. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. "Do not be called leaders [masters]; for One is your Leader [Master], that is, Christ. "But the greatest among you shall be your servant [slave].” (Matt. 23:6-11, NASB)

And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd (Grk poimen) (John 10:16.)

The reference to "brothers" (adelphoi) above is used here as a generic term, and not a gender-specific term. This is just like Apostle John telling us we can all become "sons of God." (1 John 5:1-5.) Hence, Jesus told us we are all equal, as one family of believers, brothers and sisters.

There was one denomination who put this in practice in the right way. The 18th century Quakers -- who had no role of pastor among themselves -- thereby safely permitted women to teach/preach from their seat just as much as men could do so. Boulanger, Critical Examination of Paul: 17.

Many people think operating without a formal leader is impractical. One responds: "I couldn't imagine a church run without some order."1 But you can have order without a single formal leader aside from Jesus. And why would we scoff at our Lord Jesus's words without trying to obey what He says?

You will find a summary of my experience proving it can be done at this link.

Paul and Barnabas At Odds With Jesus

So where did we get the idea of multiple pastors, ministers, and other offices lording over us? Guess?

Paul says "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors (shepherds, Greek poimenas) and teachers...." (Eph. 411.)

But Jesus said to the absolute contrary there is only one pastor:

"And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd (Greek poimen) (John 10:16.)

Jesus uses the same Greek word as Paul for pastor, but the singular while Paul uses the plural.

And where do we get the ideas that they can serve as leaders over us too?

"For though you have countless leaders in Christ ...." 1Cor.4:15

However, Jesus said: "Neither be called leaders, for you have one leader, the Christ." Matt.23:10

And where does the idea come from that these pastors / leaders can not only lord it over us, but also can expect wages from us?

In 1 Tim. 5:17, Paul wrote: "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." Then Paul uses a verse about not muzzling an ox in an illogical extension to imply churchgoers have a duty to pay the elders for their service. (1 Tim. 5:18.)

But I thought Jesus said to His disciples to lay no cost on anyone they served? "Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give." (Matt. 10:8b.) What services are free? Jesus applied this principle to all preaching and ministry works, for the words just before this were: "[7] And preach as you go, saying, `The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' [8a] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons."

Barnabas who authored Hebrews also contributed to the concept of powerful leaders and pastor-like figures in the church:

Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your
souls, as those who will give an account. (Heb. 13:17)

But Jesus said there were not to be "leaders" in the spiritual community. (Matt. 23:6-11, quoted above.)

And Jesus said we were not to have rulers among us who rule over us like Gentiles do in their assemblies. (Matt. 20:25-26.)

Jesus and Paul/Barnabas are at odds. Whom do you follow? Barnabas or Jesus? Paul or Jesus? I choose Jesus.

PS. Sometimes 1 Peter 5:5 is used to teach that 'elders' in a church are proper and we must submit to them. However, read the verse: "Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older." (NIV). Obviously, to say this is about church is twisting the verse. It is simply a moral command between young and old. It is not an organizational teaching about church.

Are Paul's Words Proven Wrong In Practice?

What harm has Paul's doctrine done to Christian women's consciences if Paul's words were not from God and yet we insisted Paul is 100% inspired?

Listen next to the sincere pain of this female who had taught the Bible for years but found herself told she must stop teaching in obedience to Paul. I don't sense any desire on her part to become a pastor and thus lord it over the rest of us, usurping Jesus's rights. This is just a sincere heart, broken by the words of Paul thrown at her to shut up in church and stop teaching God's Word! She writes:

In fact, I believe I first have to answer to God for his gifts and calling on my life. I don't want to get to heaven and hear him say, "Half-done, thou half-faithful servant." Prayerfully, I exercise my gifts to the blessing of believers when I'm invited to do so and seek to utilize my strengths without being a stumbling block to others. Women should seek to use their gifts in ways that are acceptable to their community of believers. Ask God for guidance, and read as much as you can. I don't believe women should bury their gifts or let anyone else bury them. There's a lost   world (of men and women) waiting to hear what God's gifted women have to say to them. The eternal destiny of these souls may depend on it. (Does the Bible Really Say I Can’t Teach Men? by Jill Briscoe 2007.)

Baptist History On The Role of Women Has Swung Back And Forth - A Lesson from History

The Baptists started with giving women full and equal roles in church ministry, then slid back into Paulinistic exclusion for a time, and then in the Great Awakening the equal participation of women resumed. Later Paulinistic exclusion from ministry reimposed itself. This gives us a hint on what blessings can come from following Jesus's rule on equality for women in the church (as long as no one serves as pastor and leader but Jesus). In an article from January 3, 2007 by Lydia Huffman Hoyle, of the Baptist Women in Ministry, we read this history:

The history of Baptist women in ministry is not a simple story of progress in one direction. It is a story of starts and stops. Among the earliest accounts of Baptists, we find stories of women who founded and served congregations. Some even preached. ****

This tends to confirm that Paulinist exclusion of women from ministry at odds with Jesus's teaching on equality is suppressing a true spiritual role of women that God intends in church.

But to repeat, this is not to endorse women pastors, as Jesus likewise insists there is "one pastor" and "one teacher" -- Himself. For more on Jesus's principles on church structure, see our webpage.

Conclusion

If Paul were a true prophet, then this means the Bible would sanction these "funky" commands as some call them. We would have no right to reject commands that are distasteful or strange.

However, their distastefulness and unique 'funkiness' are the first hint that they do not come from the God of the Bible. These strange commands of Paul also seem totally out of sync with Jesus. In various points, Paul even contradicts Jesus.

The explanation is sad: Paul believes in the oral Torah of the Pharisees, and even calls it the Torah. Paul says women must follow this oral TORAH/Law about head coverings.

These examples show Paul had beliefs identical to the flaws of the Pharisees identified by Jesus. Paul here has clearly a decisive affirmation of a principle from the oral Torah while elsewhere Paul degrades the written Torah  - the Ten Commandments -- "commands written in stone" - saying they have faded away, they were a mere shadow, etc. (1 Cor. 10.)

In other words, Paul made the oral traditions of the Pharisees more important than the written commands from Moses -- a flaw Jesus condemned in the Pharisees in Matthew 15:6. This led Paul to contradict Jesus on specific points.

What more proof do we want that Paul's doctrines are not of Christ? That they undermine the doctrines of Christ? And that they oppose the doctrines of Christ?