Paul and Gender: Chapter 3

a book summary

This is a summary of the third chapter of Cynthia Long Westfall's book: Paul and Gender. Westfall begins this chapter, entitled Creation, by stating how people have used Paul's references to Genesis to prove that men were meant by God to be in authority over women from the beginning of time. Strap yourself in! It may be a bumpy ride.

Rules of Logic

---

She claims that it's a logical fallacy to assume that Paul is talking about universal norms when he uses the truths of creation as support. I believe she's talking about when people say, Paul's use of the creation story shows how men were originally designed by God to be an authority over women.

Let me see if I can unpack her reasoning on this. She says that all scripture can help us with whatever we're facing in everyday life. While Paul and Jesus used the creation account to prove universal norms, Paul also uses the creation account to support cultural norms, such as women veiling during church meetings in 1 Corinthians 11. This was using the creation story to argue a temporary cultural point.

Likewise, all scripture can be used to help us understand and navigate temporary situations. Abby example: we can use the order of creation to explain how we first need to build shelves in a closet and then fill it with items. We can use God's resting on the Sabbath to decide to stay off social media one day a week.

No pastor or preacher believes that a Genesis application can only be applied to instructions that transcend all times. "This erroneous hermeneutical restriction of citations or allusions to the creation account to transcendent norms is inconsistent with the best evangelical hermeneutic and homiletic traditions, which attempt to find relevant, fresh, and specific application of scriptural norms for their context in every sermon" (Westfall, 63). How's that for a sentence!

She states that Paul's interest in the creation story doesn't seem to be about who has authority over whom, but rather "(1) how Jesus Christ fulfilled the purposes God intended for humanity at creation, (2) how Jesus reversed the effects of the fall, and (3) how God will complete his purposes for humanity, both male and female, in Christ" (Westfall, 61). 

Creation Story in 1 Corinthians 11

---

She next explains how Paul used the creation story in 1 Corinthians 11. This is a further explanation that builds upon what she's already explained about this passage in Chapter One.

She devotes a section to explaining how scripture supports that both men and women were made in God's image and how the reborn Christian bears both Christ's image and God's. Thus, people can bear more than one image. Likewise Seth in Genesis 5:3 was said to be in Adam's image. This doesn't mean that Seth wasn't in God’s image, but that Seth was in Adam's and God's image. 

Thus, 1 Corinthians 11 isn't saying that women don't have God's image when Paul says "...since he (man) is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man" (ESV). But rather that women bear men's image & glory in addition to God's image & glory.

Interesting tidbit: she cites Esdras 4:14-22, an apocryphal book, to shed more light on Paul's meaning here in 1 Corinthians 11:7. Esdras tells a funny story/proverb/quip(?) about someone proposing that women are actually the rulers of men and kings because women give birth to men and clothe men and thus bring them glory. And while men gather treasures and power, they'll give it all to a pretty woman. They will also forsake their country and kin for her.

This supposedly sheds light on Paul's meaning of "woman is the glory of man," but I'm having a hard time connecting the dots. I believe she's saying that women produce glory for both God and men, while men only produce glory for God? Maybe another way to say this is men's appearance delights God, but women's appearance delights both God and men. Therefore, at the sight of women's hair, men may be tempted to glorify women's beauty in church. Thus, women ought to be allowed to veil during church service.

"If a woman prays or prophesies with an uncovered head, the glorious appearance of her hair competes with the worship of God because it displays the 'glory of man'" (Westfall, 68). 

Westfall states that this 1 Corinthians passage is about who gets the glory, not about who has authority. Paul wants to be sure that all worship and glory goes to God during worship services and not to women, to whom men might be tempted to "worship" if women's hair is attractively falling across their shoulders and face during church meetings. 

So in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul references the Genesis story to describe the way women attract men's glory.

Order of Creation

---

Moving on, Westfall next explains how the order of creation doesn't necessarily delineate firstborn rights. Paul uses Adam being formed first in various arguments to prove something quite unrelated to who ought to rule whom. 

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is talking about the order of creation to say who brings/demonstrates glory to whom. Eve being made from Adam's side shows how she attracts Adam's glory/adoration. Not sure I said that right.

In 1 Timothy 2:13, Westfall argues that most likely Paul is using the order of creation to either stop women-spread rumors about the reverse order of creation, explain why the women of Ephesus are having issues, or explain the right order of passing on the corrective teaching that Paul gives to Timothy. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve..." (1 Tim 2:12-13 ESV). I like how she gave several possible options for this difficult passage.

Her research to support this possibility in 1 Timothy includes, among other things, the book of the Ephesians, Acts, and an early known myth in that region that supports the reversal of the creation order. She argues that believers in Ephesus wouldn't have necessarily had the connections to Jewish oral tradition about the order of creation. Ephesus was also the location of female fertility cults centered around Artemis and something like women-power feminism. Some women may have believed that because man's seed wasn't needed for the Virgin Mary to conceive Jesus, men weren’t as important as women. 

Westfall argues that Paul may have been using the creation order to not only correct the false teaching about who was created first but also to convey the correct order of teaching the truth to the myth-spreading women. The correct telephone line would be: Paul writes to Timothy, Timothy tells the husbands, the husbands tell their wives. This was the proper order for a young single guy to communicate corrective teaching to someone else's wife.

"...a man should receive the sacred trust of instruction directly from Timothy and then take responsibility to teach his wife individually in the home, which would indicate a specific procedure in the practice of discipleship" (Westfall, 75).

"It is grammatically possible (or even probable) that in 1 Timothy 2:12 Paul was suspending the Ephesian women from all teaching duties until the false teaching among them was corrected" (Westfall, 77).

I wish she expounded on the rest of 1 Timothy 2 here in this section, but it seems she has organized this book based on topic and not on big portions of verses explained all at once. Her last chapter in this book is entirely devoted to 1 Timothy 2. So more later, I guess.

More Logic

---

Here's another enlightening point Westfall made in this chapter about how people use 1 Timothy 2:12. I have been guilty of this one. People presume that if Paul says he does not allow a woman to teach/subjugate/master a man, then Paul meant that men may teach/subjugate/master women. That is faulty reasoning. She says that nowhere does Paul or any other extra-biblical text to a church leader rightly encourage anyone to teach/subjugate/master someone else with the use of this word. (More in Chapter 9)

Paul also specifically tells the men in 1 Timothy to pray without anger and quarreling. This doesn't mean women are allowed to pray angrily with quarreling, but rather that the Ephesian men had a particular problem with anger and quarreling. Thus, Paul's prohibition of women teaching/subjugating/mastering their husbands doesn't necessarily mean men are welcome to do this, but rather Paul was specifically addressing a problem the women/wives in Ephesus had. 

I really thought this point was enlightening. It prompted me to think of a similar situation. If I was writing a letter to our church's middle school department, I might admonish the teens to stop talking when their youth pastor, Devin, is teaching. If my words were canonized and passed down from generation to generation, people may falsely assume that I meant that all teens at all times must not talk while anyone named Devin is talking. People might further assume that anyone who is not a teen may talk as much as they like. If they focused primarily on who was supposed to be talking and who was supposed to be listening, they might miss the universal principle communicated in my letter about respecting our teachers.

---

And Now Interesting Things About Heads

Westfall's argument seems to be coming to a head, and by that I mean she next discusses Paul's use of the word "head." Our Western worldview and obsession over who ought to be in charge may have resulted in our missing Paul's message regarding heads.

She quotes someone named Thiselton about this. "Today's chain of literal and metaphorical associations is so exclusively bound up with institutional authority . . . that this translation and interpretation suggest a narrower focus than Paul probably has in mind" (Thiselton as quoted in Westfall's footnote, 82).

Westfall argues that when we read the word "head" we think of leadership and authority and the head of the household, but that is not how Paul's original audience would've read this word. Latin, German, and English all use "head" metaphorically to mean authority, but not so for koine Greek she says. Westfall does acknowledge that "head" occurs in leadership contexts in Greek, but that is because the function of authority is consistent with the importance of a head. This does not make the two words synonymous, though. 

Abby illustration. I think she's saying that the difference between "head" and "authority" is like the difference between a plant's roots and photosynthesis. Both have to do with plants and both are important. A plant couldn't live without roots or photosynthesis. But roots have to do with the establishment, sustainment, and growth of a plant. Photosynthesis has to do with how a plant converts energy. If we were to substitute the word "photosynthesis" every time someone wrote "roots," we would lose a great deal of meaning. Especially if someone said, "Let's uproot this plant," or "Are the roots healthy?" or "Don't let a plant get root bound."

According to Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, "head" in koine Greek did not mean "authority."  Interesting fact: translators who were translating the Hebrew Septuagint into Greek didn't translate every Hebrew word for "head" into the Greek word for "head," even when 171 of those cases, arguably, referred to head as authority. They only translated the Hebrew word for "head" into the Greek word for "head" in 6 of those cases, and those cases primarily describe a king's relationship to his people/territory, not the head of the household or spiritual leadership (Westfall, 81). What does that mean? I had to read this like 10 times to figure it out.

I believe she's saying that this is evidence that the translators of the Septuagint realized that the Latin word for head wasn't synonymous with the Greek word for head, so they used a different word.

Westfall states that "head" in koine Greek refers to both physical heads and, when used in a metaphor, could mean identity, source, life, origin, or provision (Westfall, 81). 

She acknowledges the ongoing discussion about heads meaning "authority," and she recognizes the difficulties for Westerners to understand head in this different way. In the West, we tend to be less interested in our family roots and origins than people were back then. She proposes that "The first-century Greco-Roman culture and the ancient Near East were vitally interested in a person's origin in terms of place and family" (Westfall, 80).

This seems true. When people in the Bible ask one another, "Who are you?" They don't answer "I'm a painter" or "I'm the father of nine" or "I'm the head of a great army." They say, "I'm the son of Joe-Bob of the Chaldeans." Joe-Bob was a popular name in Hebrew in case you didn’t know.

Back in those days, identity was wrapped up in a person's parentage, their father, or their head, if you will. Thus, it seems likely that head was more about family ties, individual genealogy, and how people in those days identified themselves. 

Interesting fact: Aristotle and Pythagoras both taught that a man's head was the source of sperm (Westfall, 83). In other words, men's heads produced people's families.

More evidence: Artemidorus Daldianus (Second century CE) in Oneirocritica 1.36 states that ..."the head is like the parents due to its being the cause of life..." (Westfall, 84). 

More enlightening bits: a person's physical "head bore the image of a family's resemblance on its face" according to Tobit 9:6, an apocrypha book (Westfall, 84). "The ancestor is the head, and the descendants are the seed" (Westfall, 84). Thus, Adam was the head of all humanity. Another way to describe this is by calling Adam the root of humanity (Abby's verbiage).

"Since man [Adam] is the origin of life for woman [Eve], he is her head. If the man is the head of woman, and they are one flesh, then Paul concludes that the woman is his body." (Westfall, 84). Now that is a different way to look at it!

Paul also makes this connection when he talks about Adam being made first and then Eve. Paul mentions this both in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 and Ephesians 5:21-33 in conjunction with men being women's "head." Paul seems to be relating these two points: woman made from man and man as woman's head. Very origin-ish language.

Similar language that pops into my (Abby's) mind is Colossians 1:15-18. "He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." (ESV) This is very origin-related-source-ish language.

"Similar to parents' gift of life to their children, Christ gives believers their lives and identities as children of God; but those two functions are neither synonymous nor interchangeable with his lordship" (Westfall, 83). Holy smokes! This is interesting... and convincing.  

Westfall states that this actually adds instead of detracts meaning from the places where Paul says "head." Just like Adam was the start of all physical life for humanity, Christ is the start of spiritual life for humanity. (See Eph. 1:22; 4:15-16; Col. 1:18).

This also adds meaning to the relationship between Christ and God where Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11 that the head of Christ is God. Westfall says this affirms Christ's identity with God the Father and his essential equality with God the Father. It says nothing of subordination. I don't know that I follow, but check out this confirmation from Cyril of Alexandria circa 444. Cyril was an early church patriarch who worked to refute false doctrine about the Trinity and the nature of Christ. This quote here seals the deal for me.

"Therefore our race [Adam] became first head, which is source [κεφαλή γάρ ό έστιν άρκή], and was of the earth and earthy. Since Christ was named the second Adam, he has been placed as head which is source, of those who through him have been formed anew unto him unto immortality through sanctification in the spirit. Therefore he himself our source which is head, has appeared as a human being. Yet he through God by nature, has himself a generating head, the heavenly Father and he himself, through God according to his nature, yet being the Word, was begotten of Him. Because head means source, he establishes the truth for those who are wavering in their mind that man is the head of woman for she was taken out of him. Therefore, as God according to His nature, the one Christ and Son and Lord has as his head the heavenly Father, having himself become our head because he is of the same stock according to the flesh." (Pulch 2.3, trans by Catherine Clark Kroeger, "Appendix 3: The classical Concept of Head as "Source," in Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve: Men and Women Working Together Revealing the Gospel [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987], 268, emphasis original) (Quote from Westfall's footnote, 86).

Side note: Catherine Clark Kroeger here translated άρκή, which means beginning or origin, as source. I do not know enough Greek to know how related "origin" is to "source," but since Westfall includes both in her definition of the Greek word for head, I don't see an issue with this.

Head Confusions

---

Westfall says that there's been understandable confusion about "head" meaning authority because Latin, German, and English all use head in metaphors about authority. She mentions how male hierarchy has come under fire recently and has resulted in some scholars trying to argue that while Christ and God are by nature equal, there is still functional subordination between Christ and God, meaning Jesus submitted to God's authority while he was a man on earth.

Westfall says this solution creates several problems with the parallels Paul draws between God & Christ, Christ & men, and men & women.

Problem 1) If the head of every man is Christ, that means that Christ is the authority of every man, but all men haven't submitted to Christ right now. Yes, one day they will be, but that's end-times talk and Paul seems to be talking about a current reality. So how is Christ right now the head of every man?

Problem 2) If the authority of men is Christ, why isn't the authority of women also Christ? How do men submit to Christ in a way that women do not submit to Christ?

Problem 3) If men are to submit to Christ like women submit to their husbands, then men do not experience the same sort of subordination to Christ that men argue is right for their wives to give to them. 

Problem 4) The Father and Son are ontologically equal. Men and women are ontologically equal, but men are not ontologically equal with Christ.

Problem 5) These authority pairs don't account for the authority some men have over other men, such as masters over servants. In fact, Paul doesn't even use the word "head" when describing a master's authority over slaves or servants because "head" isn't synonymous with having authority over.

Westfall goes on to say that some scholars argue that Paul is stating how mankind ought to be ordered, not necessarily how it is actually ordered. Thus, God intended men to be the authority over women as benevolent leaders ruling with Christ-like humility and servanthood. However, because of the fall, men aren't. Yet again, this same sort of "ought to be" order doesn't apply to God as Christ's head. Paul isn't saying God ought to be Christ's head, but rather, he is. Thus, Paul is saying something about what is right now true of these pairs, not what ought to be. Paul says that the head of woman is man, not ought to be man. Christ is right now the head of man, not ought to be. In the current state of things, all women are not in subordination to men nor are all men in subordination to Christ.

On the other hand, understanding "head" as identity, source, progenitor, or family root/representation makes more sense and adds meaning to many other passages where Paul uses similar language to describe the relationships between God and Christ, Christ and men. God is represented in Christ. Christ represents the perfect man. Men traditionally represent their families here on earth.

Heads in Other Verses

---

In 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul is talking about veils, he uses the word "head" as a source of glory. Eve was made out of Adam, and thus she was both Adam's glory and God's glory.

In Ephesians 5, Paul uses the word "head" again between two source-related relationships. Just as Christ provides for the church, husbands provide for their wives. Westfall argues that Paul is reminding the Ephesians of that patron-client relationship where people give to others what is due to them, like what Paul says in Romans 13:7 "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." (ESV) Thus, in Ephesians Paul is saying because husbands act as a source of many things to their wives, wives submit to husbands.

This is a submission based on "real benefits given, not on the order of creation or the basic nature of masculinity and femininity" (Westfall, 101).

"In the traditional marriage in the Greco-Roman culture, the wife lost her identity in her family of origin and received her identity, protection, food, clothing, and shelter from her husband, which Paul correlates with Christ's provision for the church" (Westfall, 100-101). Thus Paul's admonishment for wives to submit to their husbands is a call for wives to "fulfill their part of mutual submission because their husbands supply them with their basic necessities of life" (Westfall, 100).

But Paul is saying so much more in this Ephesians passage than something about the patron-client relationship. In fact, Paul focuses on the husband's role in this relationship much more than the wives. "There is little new information in the instructions to women, but the instructions to men are dramatically different in directness, expansion, and scope." (Westfall, 101).

Interesting side-note. Ephesians 5:22's literal translation is "wives to their own husbands as to the Lord." The word submit isn't even in there, but is inferred because of verse 21—"Submit therefore one to another"—, which Westfall argues is part of the same sentence.

Moving on, Paul's address to the men in Ephesians 5 and his reference to Genesis "the two shall become one flesh" really turns the patron-client relationship on its head as Paul likens the wife to the husband's own body. She is not separate from him, but is to be given the same treatment as a man would treat himself. Not only that, but the service that men are to give their wives is likened to that of servant's or women's work. As Christ washed and cleansed the church (woman's work), so husbands treat your wives.

"This is the dynamic within the entire section that deals with the household codes in Ephesians 5:22-32 and Colossians 3:18-4:1. In the pairs of relationships addressed, the wives, children, and slaves are to maintain behavior that is acceptable within the culture, while the directions to the husbands, parents, and masters are revolutionary" (Westfall, 102).

I just listened to 1 and 2 Timothy in light of this, and it's remarkable. If I stop focusing so much on who ought to be in authority over whom, these books have so much more meaning. Verses now relate to Paul's argument that previously seemed totally random. Hmmm... I think I like Paul.

To read the next chapter, click the link after Friday March 8

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