Paul and Gender: Chapter 1

a book summary

This is a summary of the first chapter of Cynthia Long Westfall's book: Paul and Gender. I have not summarized all of her points in this rather long chapter as she refutes some viewpoints that I didn't feel needed refuting. Perhaps for someone who has grown up in a more male-dominated, male-privileged environment, these would be important points to read. 

However, I have tried to represent her main points to the best of my abilities in simpler language for those of us who like to use smaller words.

In Westfall's first chapter, entitled Culture, she attempts to explain several aspects of Greco-Roman culture and how those relate to Paul's writings about Gender. In this chapter, she addresses Patron-Client relationships, who ruled what during the first-century, and 1 Corinthians 11.

Westfall argues that Paul used Greco-Roman language devices, cultural concepts,  and ideas about gender to challenge what was accepted and considered normal at that time. Some cultural stuff he criticized, some he transformed, and some he adopted.

"In other words, in order for his message to be communicated meaningfully, he deliberately employed commonly understood metaphors, conventions, and cultural institutions to transform the churches into a movement that was spiritually and ethically countercultural" (Westfall, 12).

Westfall next expounds upon several of these cultural norms. Her research is quite extensive and involves historical records, laws, receipts, Greek philosophers' writings, tombstones, household codes, extra-biblical texts, etc. Her bibliography at the end is 16 pages long separated into ancient texts and contemporary texts.

Patron/Clients

---

One Greco-Roman norm was that women were placed in a hierarchical position below men based on the belief that women had inferior natures. This belief was prevalent in Greek philosophical writings. She names some here.

Another norm was the way relationships worked between people of unequal social status. Westfall calls these relationships a patron-client relationship. The patron was the person who was able to give benefits, and the client was the one who received the benefits and thus owed loyalty and gratitude to his/her patron. She groups masters/slaves as a patron/client relationship, as well as rulers/ruled, business owners/servants, and husbands/wives. 

In the relationship between husbands and wives, the patron was husband who had superior wealth, honor, status, and value that he was able to give his wife. In fact, because the wife was thought to be by nature inferior, she gained value, honor, and a sense of identity from her superior-natured husband. In exchange for these benefits, she was obligated to give her husband respect, loyalty, and service. 

Westfall argues that Paul uses the cultural understanding of the patron-client relationship in Ephesians 5:22-27 when speaking of the church receiving benefits from Christ and the wife receiving benefits from her husband. He then builds on this concept by calling for a mutual submission. Then, instead of affirming the cultural belief in the inferiority of women, he brings women up to the same status and treatment of men by calling women their husband's "body" (Westfall, 22). In essence, the wife is of the same value as men. She explains more on this in other chapters. 

Who Rules the House

---

Another cultural aspect during those times was that both men and women were expected to rule in their separate spheres. A man's was outside the home in public transactions to gather raw supplies for his family, while a woman's was inside the home in food prep, childrearing, laundering, making clothes, and the bathing of children and men. Except for spinning, often these jobs were delegated to slaves. While a man could override his wife at home and rule in these domestic areas, that was not the Plato or Greco-model.

Thus, when Jesus washed his disciples' feet, he was performing the lesser duties of the women-folk and/or servants. And when Paul describes the relationship between Christ and his church, and husbands and their wives, he puts Christ and husbands in the servant position (Westfall, 23). "He promotes a model of servanthood and low status, consistent with the humility of Christ's incarnation, precisely for men, who have power and position in the Greco-Roman social system" (Westfall, 23).

Interesting. Isn't it? I'd never heard that washing feet might be women's work. 

Things About Veils

---

Westfall next explains some fascinating research about veils in Corinth at that time. One: slaves, prostitutes, and freedwomen were not by law allowed to wear veils outside their homes. Two: a woman's hair was considered a tantalizing feature to men. Three: veils were a symbol of honor, position, and protection. 

"The veil served not merely to mark the upper classes but, more fundamentally, to differentiate between 'respectable' women and those who were publically available. That is, use of the veil classified women according to their sexual activity and signaled to men which women were under male protection and which were fair game." (Ahmed, Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate as quoted in Westfall, 27).

Photo by Manuel Vega Torres on Unsplash

Shocking fact: A man could be prosecuted for sleeping with a veiled woman; not so with an unveiled woman. Also, it was normal for women to take off their veils at home when around family. More interesting tidbits: the church at Corinth met in a home and called one another "brother" and "sister." Corinth's church consisted of both respectable, veil-wearing women and unveiled low-class women. Add the fact that men regulated veil rules, and we have quite a complex issue here.

Another interesting point that she notes is that both Roman men and women covered their heads when praying to their gods. At some point, Christian men decided to be different than the Romans in worship and to not cover their heads. Westfall states that it's possible that the Christian men thought the women should follow suit in not wearing veils.

Westfall states that most scholars believe: "that women were flouting the convention of wearing a veil in the house church and were corrected by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16" (Westfall, 25-26). I believe she's speaking about relatively recent scholars before 2016? Not sure.

However, Westfall, argues that this is assuming veils were bad. Our negative associations with veils and oppressed women are muddying the issue. We tend to think that veils are symbols of being in submission to a husband because translators have added "symbol of" to "That is why a wife ought to have (a symbol of) authority of her head because of the angels" in 1 Corinthians 11:10. I looked it up in Greek, and the words "symbol of" aren't present. Wild! Who decided to add that bit?

Westfall proposes that this verse means that women ought to decide for themselves whether to veil or not during church. She says that the Corinth upper-class women wouldn't have wanted to remove their veils as veils symbolized their high class status, dignity, honor, unavailability, and protection. On the other hand, the low-class women would've wanted to start wearing veils during church to show they were under the protection of the church and were not available in a church setting. Veils were a good thing, not a symbol of submission or subjugation.

Abby Analogy

---

I (Abby) was trying to think of an analogy for veils and thought of two imperfect ones: crowns and blouses. If the Corinth women all wore crowns to signify their upper-class position, I can see why the men of Corinth may have suggested women take their crowns off so that both the upper class and the lower classes were equalized. However, on the other hand, if the veils were also like modest blouses that the upper-class, morally upright women wore so as not to advertise their wears like all those lower-class hoochi mamas, the upper-class women would want to keep their shirts on. Not only that but the low-class women might want to start wearing blouses in church to look like respectable women. Imperfect analogies, I know. 

Westfall explains that it was more likely that Paul was reprimanding the men for asking all women to unveil. In 1 Corinthians 11:16,—"If anyone wants to be argumentative about this..."—Westfall notes the male pronoun "anyone" and the masculine adjective ending in "argumentative," to indicate that Paul is speaking primarily to the men. Plus, Paul previously stated in his letter that the men are having issues with anger and quarreling.

Thus, Westfall proposes that Paul is petitioning for the women to have the right (authority) to decide for themselves what they may wear on their head because of the angels—a reference to 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 where Paul says the Corinthians must be competent to judge ordinary matters because one day they will judge the world and even angels.

All this to say that Paul is most likely arguing to allow all women to veil, thus bringing honor and security to both upper-class and low-class women.

Westfall goes on to demonstrate how the other verses in 1 Corinthians 11 add to Paul's argument about bringing glory to God and honor/security to the women. She says that if we take the "authority on her head" to mean that women must wear veils to show they are under the authority of a man, Paul's flow of argument is disjointed and unrelated. True.

She spoke briefly here about how "head" may mean authority and we often use it in that sense, she argues, it makes more sense for Paul's use of head to mean "source" not authority. I didn't entirely follow the rest of her explanation about this. She did, however, say that she'd get more into "heads" in chapter 3. (Pst. She does. And this will make sense later.)

Abby’s Take at 1 Corinthians 11

---

I wish at the end of her chapter she rewrote these difficult verses with her insights woven into them, but she doesn't. So here's my best attempt based on how I understand her at this point. By the way, she adds more insight to these verses throughout various chapters.

"2 Now I, Paul, commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that men and women are different, for man's life came from Christ, and a woman's life came from man's, and Christ's life came from God. 4 So every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered, like the Romans do in prayer to their gods, lacks humility and dishonors God as his source of life, 5 but every wife who uncovers her head to pray or prophesy dishonors her husband since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife is not allowed to cover her head, then she should cut her hair short so as not to advertise herself to other men. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, allow all the women to cover their heads.

"7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he bears God's image and brings God glory, but woman was made in the image of God and Adam's image, so she brings God and men glory. 8 For remember, man was not made from women's side, but woman was created by God from man's side. 9 Neither was man created because woman needed someone, but woman was made because man needed someone. And thus, women's appearance has something desirous for men.

"10 That is why a wife ought to be allowed authority over her own head, because remember what I said before, one day we'll also have authority over angels. 11 Nevertheless, don't get carried away with this independent-authority talk, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 

"13 Judge for yourselves, men: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long to seduce other men as some Romans do, it's a disgrace, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it adds to her beauty? For her hair is given to her as a beautiful attraction. 16 If any men are inclined to argue about this like you men do sometimes, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God."

Conclusion

---

In summary, Paul's defense of all women wearing veils in 1 Corinthians 11 was counter-cultural and brought honor and dignity to the women in the church at that time.   

"...the development of his argument actually equalizes the relationship between men and women, established their relative value, and brought out the reciprocity of their origin . . . His focus and concern are not reinforcing or increasing the authority or control of husbands over their wives, but rather ensuring that God is glorified, that the women are not personally disgraced or shamed while they pray and prophesy, and that they not send out an inappropriate message through their dress by displaying their hair while they minister and worship." (Westfall, 42).

The next chapter summary is available below after Friday, Feb 23.

Westfall, Cynthia Long. Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle's Vision for Men and Women in Christ. Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Michigan. 2016)