[A PDF version of this post with publication quality Greek and English fonts is at the bottom of this page.]

I wish to thank Professor Schreiner for his detailed review (hereafter S). I am delighted that he read my book (hereafter MW) carefully enough that he acknowledges several things many other complementarians have refused to acknowledge, including the following ten:

1) “The requirements for elders in 1 Tim 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9, including the statement that they are to be one-woman men, does not necessarily in and of itself preclude women from serving as elders….” (S 35)

2) “I agree with Payne that Phoebe was a deacon and that women served as deacons (1 Tim 3:11). … Women can and should serve as deacons ….” (S 35)

3) “Priscilla was clearly gifted in remarkable ways, and she did instruct Apollos, and hence men should be open to biblical instruction from women.” (S 35)

4) “Junia was almost certainly a woman, and Paul identifies her as an apostle.” (S 35)

5) “[K]ephalē may denote source in some texts (Eph 4:15; Col 2:19).” (S 36)

6) “Payne rightly argues that [1Cor 11:]11–12 teach the fundamental equality of men and women in Christ.” (S 38)

7) “I agree with Payne that “one another” (allēlois) does not designate the submission of some to others.” (S 41)

8) “Describing 1 Timothy as a manual of church order, as Payne suggests, does not fit precisely the purpose of the letter.” (S 42) We agree on this.

9) “Payne is to be thanked for the tone of his book, for he is fair and respectful (even though he feels very strongly about this matter!) with those with whom he disagrees.” (S 44)

10) “[C]omplementarians will be gratified to see his [Payne’s] high view of scripture.” (S 45)

However, I strongly disagree with the overall thrust of the review. Schreiner’s review portrays Man and Woman, One in Christ as “familiar ground…, representing arguments that he and others have made for many years … [M]ost of the arguments made by Payne have been rehearsed many times” (S 33). It concludes, “I suspect that Payne’s book will not have a great impact. Most of what he says is not new … [but is like] another drizzly day in Portland, Oregon.” ¹

S’s portrayal of WM is unhelpful for five reasons.

First, this misrepresents the extent of the original research and insights throughout MW, many of them of critical importance to this debate. Some S ignores completely, such as the insights into Gamaliel’s (under whom Paul studied, Acts 22:3) remarkable affirmations of greater freedom for women and the distinctively-shaped distigme-obelus symbol that marks the location of widely acknowledged, extended interpolations in Codex Vaticanus B, the oldest surviving Greek Bible. MW 237-40 identifies these locations and the extended interpolations occurring there, including the one at the end of 1 Cor 14:33. An obelus is a long horizontal bar symbol that since the time of Aristarchus has marked spurious text. Origin used obeloi to mark LXX text not in the MT. Though MW does not mention this, Codex Sarravianus-Colbertinus (G, the oldest extensive hexaplaric LXX) also uses distigme-shaped obeloi. S also downplays many of the other original contributions of MW, including the following:

the detailed documentation that “source” is a standard meaning of “head” in Greek (MW 35–38) to a degree that “leader” or “authority” is not (MW 117–39);

its comprehensive, consistent, and lexically, grammatically, syntactically, and culturally natural exegesis of 1 Cor 11:2–16 (MW 109–215);

the thoroughness of its external and internal arguments for the interpolation of 1 Cor 14:34–35 (MW 217–67);

the identification for the first time in print of fifty-one distigmai (symbols marking the locations where other manuscripts have variant textual readings) that match the distinctive original ink color of Codex Vaticanus (MW 232–46);

the clarity of its exegesis of the apposition in Eph 5:23 and Col 1:18 explaining “head” (κεφαλή) as “savior” and “source” (ἀρχή), respectively (MW 283–90);

and its thorough documentation that αὐθεντεῖν in 1 Tim 2:12 should be understood as “to assume independent authority without proper authorization” (MW 361–97).

Second, S obscures the most important contribution of MW, that it puts together the disparate pieces of this puzzle, integrating the insights and discoveries of others in a way that makes sense of all Paul’s statements about women. It shows that the apostle Paul’s theology, practice, and each of his statements about man and woman are internally consistent. It provides a holistic understanding of Paul’s teaching on man and woman in the context of his wider theology. Some take for granted that Paul’s teachings on women are inconsistent, while others conveniently ignore the most natural reading of several critical passages to make them compatible with their theology, whether complementarian or egalitarian. MW takes old texts and by analysis of their words, grammar, syntax, literary setting, and cultural context, brings them to life in new and fresh way that make sense in their original setting. It then shows how their message fits within Paul’s argument and theological vision and how it applies today. This is not “familiar ground,” as S contends, but groundbreaking foundational research.

Third, I doubt that anyone who is not a specialist like Schreiner would be familiar with most of the information in the book. In any event, it does not matter whether an argument is old or new, but whether it is good or bad. Many good arguments for gender equality are old precisely because the Bible teaches them. It is inconsistent to criticize MW for using “old” arguments and immediately turn around and use the same old objections that MW has refuted. Many of these are identified below. Even if one does not find my refutations persuasive, they deserve to be addressed fairly, not ignored or distorted at their strongest points.

Fourth, although at the beginning of the review Schreiner states that he will “present his [Payne’s] interpretation” (S 33), S misrepresents MW eighty-one times, ten times attributing to MW the opposite of what it states! In twenty-two additional instances, S attributes to MW a position MW nowhere states. Beyond these, in various instances it:

attributes to MW an argument that MW does not make, then attacks that argument;

accuses MW of doing something it does not do;

says that MW does not do something it does do;

overstates what MW argues, then criticizes MW for overstating its case;

misrepresents the scope of the evidence MW presents;

omits crucial elements of MW’s statements, making them sound foolish;

mischaracterizes what MW does;

uses innuendo to make it seem like MW advocates a foolish position that MW does not state or support;

misuses, and so apparently misunderstands, crucial ideas in MW; 

makes unfair generalizations about MW.

S then calls these misrepresented views “wrong,” “error,” “most implausible,” “quite weak,” “overly simplistic,” even “untenable” (S 40). Every good review must be careful to treat its subject with enough respect to address its arguments fairly. Misrepresentations, even unintentional and seemingly small ones, can dramatically distort one’s understanding of the truth and lead to great error, especially on such a sensitive issue as gender.

Fifth, S is replete with dubious assertions. The detailed analysis that follows identifies forty-one of these.

For these reasons, S left much to be desired. I encourage you to read MW, then read his review and decide for yourself if his review – or my critique of it – is fair. Discount autographed copies are $17.75 ($29.99 list) on this web site.

A More Detailed Response to S’s Eighty-one Misrepresentations and Forty-one Dubious Assertions

I take no delight in pointing out the errors of others. My desire is solely that the truth will prevail and that we will come to appreciate the message of Scripture in accordance with God’s intention and obey it. It was only because my reverence for God’s Word is more important to me than the preconceptions with which I began my research that the exegetical data was able to change my mind on point after point. It is my prayer that you, too, will read my analysis of the data with a primary commitment to the truth of Scripture, not to any preconceptions you have about gender roles.

Following is a more detailed critique of S for those who have requested it and for those who care to see how distorted its depiction of MW is. First, it identifies eighty-one of S’s misrepresentations of MW’s positions, then forty-one of S’s dubious assertions. Specific identification is necessary because they frame the debate unfairly and cause people to misjudge MW. The detailed refutation is required because it would be unfair and unscholarly to allege such a large numbers of misrepresentations without showing why each is a misrepresentation. Also, Schreiner, as a major spokesman for the complementarian viewpoint,² expresses many stock complementarian ideas in his review. Consequently, this critique answers widely held concerns of complementarians. In a comparatively brief space, it permits you to find concise answers to the most crucial questions in this debate.

The following detailed delineation of eighty-one misrepresentations of MW by S does not include misrepresentations for which I imagined a plausible justification. The misrepresentations are grouped according to the following categories:

1. Ten times S attributes to MW the opposite of what MW states.
2. In twenty-two additional instances, S attributes to MW a position MW nowhere states.
3. In five additional instances, S attributes to MW an argument that MW does not make, then attacks that argument.
4. In six additional instances, S accuses MW of doing something it does not do.
5. In three additional instances, S says that MW does not do something it does do.
6. In one additional instance, S overstates what MW argues, then criticizes MW for overstating its case.
7. In two additional instances, S misrepresents the scope of the evidence MW presents.
8. In twelve additional instances, S omits crucial elements of MW’s statements, making them sound foolish.
9. In seven additional instances, S mischaracterizes what MW does.
10. In one additional instance, S uses innuendo to make it seem like MW advocates a foolish position that MW does not state or support.
11. In two additional instances, S misuses, and so apparently misunderstands, crucial ideas in MW.
12. Ten times S makes unfair generalizations about MW.

This critique puts each misrepresentation into the lowest numbered category it fits. It then assesses forty-one of S’s dubious assertions. It concludes by contrasting Schreiner’s evaluation of MW to the evaluations of other scholars.

1. Ten times S attributes to MW the opposite of what MW states.

S 34 “He [Payne] argues that … Priscilla is always named before her husband.”

Not only does MW not argue this, page 64 n. 14 states to the contrary, “Both Luke in Acts 18:2 and Paul in 1 Cor 16:19 introduce them listing Aquila’s name before his wife’s, proving that something like her wealth or social status did not necessitate this reversal of convention.” This makes an even stronger case for the prominence of Priscilla’s ministry in contexts mentioning their active ministry (Acts 18:18, 26; Rom 16:3), since in each such case, both Paul and Luke list Priscilla’s name first before her husband’s, contrary to Greek and Hebrew custom. This includes the instance in Acts 18:26 when “Priscilla and Aquila… explained to him [Apollos] the way of God more accurately” (NASB).

S 36–37 “Payne says that 1 Cor 11:3 points to Christ being the source of Adam, but the text says that Christ is the ‘head of every man.’ There is nothing about Adam in particular in this verse. Paul speaks universally here.”

This gives the false impression that MW argues that “every man” in “Christ is the head of every man” refers to Adam. MW never states this. Quite the contrary, MW 129 states, “The prominent position of “every man” at the start of this statement emphasizes its universal scope.” Since the source of all men goes back to the creation of Adam, it is, however, appropriate to regard the temporal event of Adam’s creation as the source of all men. This is why Genesis 1–3 is commonly referred to as describing the creation of mankind. The association of “every man” with Adam is thoroughly Pauline, e.g. 1 Cor 15:22 “in Adam (ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ) all (πάντες) die.” It reflects the Hebrew idea of a person’s descendents being in his loins” (e.g. Heb 7:9–10).

It is not this clause, but the following clause, that specifies “the man [with the article] is the head/source of woman.” It is about this following clause that MW argues, “As with each of the three statements in verse 3, the second member is highlighted with an article: ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ἀνήρ, ὁ θεός. Since in both of the surrounding cases an article identifies a specific person (Christ, God) and since by far the most common use of an article in Paul’s letters is to specify, it is most natural to understand “the man,” as in 11:12 as a reference to “the man,” Adam, from whom woman came. This fits perfectly with the established meaning of κεφαλή (head) as source since Adam was the source from whom the woman was taken and since both verse 8 and verse 12 refer to this event.”

S 38 “Payne … wrongly concludes that such teaching on equality precludes a role difference between men and women in vv. 8–9.”

Not only is this not true, MW defends the opposite of what Schreiner alleges. MW 180–81 states that “verses 8 and 9 reinforce Paul’s stress on the differentiation of man and woman, his sexual mate … she can complement him as his mate.” This differentiation entails different roles in sex, childbearing, and nursing. What verses 11–12 repudiate, required by the disjunctive “However” [πλήν], is that although Paul argues for different head coverings for men and women, this does not entail any separation between women and men in Christ. See MW 189–98. This is why both men and women may prophecy as long as they do so in a way that does not symbolize repudiation of marriage.

S 38 “Against Payne, Paul teaches both differences of role and equality of essence in these verses.”

See the immediately preceding repudiation of this distortion of what MW teaches. Paul requires different head covering conventions for men and women in 1 Cor 11 in order to avoid cultural symbolism for each that undermined marriage. Paul affirms that these differing requirements do not limit women’s freedom to prophecy publicly. Paul’s appeals to shame imply that women’s prophecy is public. MW, like Schreiner and Paul in 1 Cor 11:11, denies that women and men are separate in the Lord. MW like Paul, affirms the equality of man and woman, not only in essence, but also in their equal standing in Christ and in the church. Like Paul, MW argues from women’s equal standing in Christ to women’s freedom to minister both vertically in prayer and horizontally in prophecy.

S 38 “Payne falls into the error of thinking that if a text teaches equality then role differences are precluded.”

See the two preceding repudiations of this distortion of what MW teaches.

S 39–40 “Since MS 915 is non-Western, the idea that only Western texts place vv. 34–35 after v. 40 is falsified.”

Not only does MW not make such a claim, MW 249 and n. 133 cites MS 915, a non-Western text, as having 34–35 after v. 40.

S 41 “The mystery of marriage (Eph 5:32) is rooted in Christ’s relationship to the church. Astonishingly, Payne doesn’t even mention this interpretation, and so there is no reason for complementarians to be convinced by his interpretation of Eph 5:22–33.”

The opposite is true. The MW section on Paul’s Vision of Marriage in Ephesians 5:21–33 explicitly states on p. 277, “In Eph 5, Paul compares the relationship between husband and wife to the relationship between Christ and the church.” Furthermore, this chapter refers to “the church” forty-five times.

S 42 “Payne … [says t]he women are to be submissive to the truth of God’s word, not to men or their husbands.”

MW never says that women are not to be submissive to their husbands, but repeatedly affirms the opposite, e.g. MW 275–76, “The reasons he [Paul] gives for wives to submit are reverence for Christ (Eph 5:21), Christ’s command to love, and a desire to follow his example (Eph 5:1–2; Phil 2:3–8), not to uphold a hierarchical structure.” MW 289 “When a husband is the ‘head’ of his wife in this sense [loving their wives as their own bodies … just as Christ does the church] his wife has good reason to submit to him (5:23 “because,” ὅτι), and submission to loving nourishment becomes a joyous response.”

The submission 1 Tim 2:11 enjoins specifically modifies “to learn.” Consequently, it is natural to understand the submission to be submission to the truths that they are learning. Learning “in all submission” (ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ) is the opposite of being deceived and falling “in transgression” (ἐν παραβάσει 2:14). Since transgression was disobedience to God’s command, submission in contrast is best understood as obedience to God’s commands.

S 43 states, “Women should submit to apostolic teaching, but that teaching is communicated by the elders/overseers/pastors, so Payne presents us with a false dichotomy.”

Nowhere does MW make such a dichotomy regarding this passage. MW 403 explicitly states the opposite on p. 403, “A woman’s quiet teachable spirit in submitting (v. 11b) to the teaching she receives shows proper respect to her Christian teachers such as Timothy.” Schreiner’s “teaching is communicated by the elders/overseers/pastors” seems to assume that overseers alone conveyed apostolic teaching or were the only ones from whom women were to learn, but 1 Cor 14:26 states, “When you come together … each has a teaching,” and Paul commands the church in Colossae, “teach one another in all wisdom” (Col 3:16).

S 45 “[Regarding “Payne’s interpretation of v. 14”] Nor does it work to say that Eve was ignorant of the prohibition given to Adam.”

MW does not state or in any way support the idea that Eve was ignorant of God’s prohibition of eating from that tree. In fact, MW 413–14 states the opposite: “Hurley also makes the dubious assumption that God did not communicate directly with the woman but only with Adam, and that the woman was not ‘prepared by God to discern the serpent’s lies’ [Biblical Perspective, 216]. Genesis does not say that God did not communicate directly with the woman or that God talked to her only through Adam. It would be strange indeed if God brought forth the climax of creation, so that it was at last “very good,” but did not bother even once to tell Eve about this mortal danger at hand.” Ironically, Schreiner in “Dialogue,” WCA 113–14, has argued, “An appeal to Adam sinning willfully and Eve sinning mistakenly (being deceived) would seem to argue against men teaching women, for at least the woman wanted to obey God, while Adam sinned deliberately.”

2. In twenty-two additional instances, S attributes to MW a position MW nowhere states.

S 35 “[Payne’s] view is most implausible that 5:21 functions as the thematic verse for the household code (Eph 5:22–6:9).”

Nowhere does MW state or imply that 5:21 is a thematic verse for the household code. See MW 277–90.

S 35–36 “the gift of prophecy should not be equated with the regular teaching and preaching of God’s Word.”

MW never equates prophecy with other gifts or the regular teaching and preaching of God’s Word, nor does it equate gifts and acts. Nevertheless, MW rejects the underlying assumption that teaching is more authoritative than prophetic utterance. How much more authoritative can one get than declaring, “Thus saith the Lord…”?

S 36 “Payne goes on to say that the reference to “God” in 11:3 and 11:12 refers to the

“Godhead” and cannot be restricted to the Father.”

MW 134 argues in light of 1 Cor 8:6, “Jesus Christ, through whom all things came,” that in 11:12 “all this comes from the God (ὁ θεός),” “the God” must include Christ. Consequently, “the God” in 11:12 should be understood as a reference to the Godhead, not exclusively to the Father. Paul’s use of “the God” in 11:12 for the Godhead heightens the likelihood that “the God” (also ὁ θεός) in 11:3 is likewise a reference to the Godhead rather than restricted to the Father. Contrary to Schreiner’s allegation, however, MW never says 11:3 “cannot be restricted to the Father.” Rather, MW 134 states, “Even if “the God” in 11:3 were a reference specifically to the Father, it would still make good sense to understand κεφαλή to mean “source” referring to the incarnation. This is how Jesus himself expressed that he came from the Father in John 8:42; 16:27–28 and 17:8.”

S 36 “[For Payne] to say that the term cannot mean ‘authority over’ in 1 Cor 11:3 since not all acknowledge Christ’s authority misses the point.”

MW 129 never states that the term cannot mean authority over but rather it states, “‘Source’ fits better than ‘authority’ as the meaning of κεφαλή in ‘the Christ is [ἔστιν] the κεφαλή of every man’ (1 Cor. 11:3)” and gives substantial evidence for this. MW 129 notes: “The prominent position of ‘every man’ at the start of this statement emphasizes its universal scope.” Yet Paul in this letter states that Christ has not yet “put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Heb 2:8–9 states, “At present we do not see everything subject to him.” Furthermore, Paul implies that Christ alone is “the” κεφαλή of every man by adding an article to it in contrast to the other two occurrences of κεφαλή in verse 3. Christ is not in the present, however, the only authority over men, but Christ as creator is uniquely the source of every man, and Paul draws attention to this in 1 Cor 8:6; 11:7, 8, and 12, where this theme is foundational to his whole argument. The “authority” interpretation also fails to explain a distinctive sense in which Christ is the authority over every male person, as required by the Greek word usually translated “man” here, ἀνδρός. Why would Paul say that Christ is the authority of every male human being? Is there any sense in which Christ would be the authority over men but not over women? If so, that would undermine the universal lordship of Christ. The English translation “every man” conceals the awkwardness of the “authority” interpretation since, unlike ἀνδρός, “man” in English, especially older English, commonly refers to both sexes. In contemporary English the use of “man” to include women invites misunderstanding, and many find it objectionable. The “source” interpretation does not have this problem because of Christ’s distinct actions in first creating man, then woman from the side of man. Unlike a difference in authority relationships, this temporal difference in creation does not undermine either the authority of Christ or the equality of man and woman as affirmed in 1 Cor 11:11–12.

S 37 “Payne wrongly charges those who think there are economic distinctions among the members of the Trinity with the subordinationist heresy.”

MW does not even use the word “economic” in this regard. MW 133 argues that necessary and eternal or ontological Subordinationism “conflicts with Christ’s ontological equality with God the Father” as taught in Paul’s letters. Affirmations of necessary and eternal or ontological subordination of the Son to the Father also conflict with the Athanasian Creed’s statements that each person of the Trinity is “almighty” and “Lord,” “none is before or after another;” “none is greater or lesser than another;” and all are “coequal.” See MW 130–36. “Economic” in discussions of the Trinity typically refers to the “modes of operation” of the Trinity, particularly in creation and redemption through the incarnation. MW 133–34 argues from many passages in Paul’s letters and elsewhere in the NT that “Christ’s submission to incarnation and death was the voluntary submission of an equal for the specific purpose of redemption. It was not the submission of a subordinate in a hierarchy of authority.” MW 135 points out that “Many who interpret κεφαλή as ‘authority’ attempt to avoid the subordinationist heresy by saying that ‘the κεφαλή of Christ is God’ refers to Christ’s voluntary submission to the Father in his work of redemption.” I affirm economic distinctions among the members of the Trinity in their modes of operation in creation and redemption. In His redemptive role, the Son did submit to the Father. This, however, is, as Paul teaches in Phil 2:6–8, the voluntary submission of an equal, not the “necessary and eternal” or ontological subordination of the Son to the Father that characterizes the subordinationist heresy.

S 38 “Payne insists the verses must be interpolated, for the disruption in the context is too severe for the verses to be original.”

Nowhere does MW state or imply this. What MW 254–56 does argue is that these verses disrupt the context. This and the eight other internal factors along with the seven external factors examined in MW 227–65, however, provide powerful evidence for interpolation.

S 38 “Payne defends this interpretation because MW 88 is a non-Western, and hence its inclusion of vv. 34–35 cannot be attributed to Western influence.”

MW never states that the “inclusion of vv. 34–35 cannot be attributed to Western influence.” MW 250 states, to the contrary, one advantage of the view that MS 88 was copied from a MS that omitted vv. 34–35 is that it “does not depend on its scribe having access either to a Western manuscript or a non-Western manuscript with a reading totally out of keeping with its textual tradition.”

S 38–39 “Payne argues that … Paul never appeals to an OT verse for the practice of the church.”

MW never says this. In fact, pages 260–61 and footnotes 168–73 cite many instances where Paul appeals to an OT verse for the practice of the church. MW 261 does state, however, “This theological tension between 14:34–35 and Paul’s teaching about freedom from the law, along with the absence of appeals to a precept of the law to establish rules for Christian worship elsewhere in Paul’s letters, and the absence of any OT statement that matches what 14:34 commands, are irrefutable evidence that 1 Cor 14:34 is out of harmony with what Paul teaches about the law and how he expresses it elsewhere.”

S 40 Schreiner cites Kloha, “Payne had described this as a possibility before ruling it out.”

Contrary to this allegation, MW never rules out this possibility but simply argues that MS 88 is more easily explained if it was copied from a MS omitting 1 Cor 14:34–35.

S 40 “Payne argues that the call for wives to submit to their husbands is culturally limited.”

To the contrary, MW does not argue “that the call for wives to submit to their husbands is culturally limited.” It accepts Paul’s call for wives to submit to their husbands as it is in Eph 5:21–22, an instance of mutual submission enjoined on the church. MW 271–90 does not even mention culture as a reason for it. MW 272, however, does point out that “Advocates of a hierarchical structure in marriage of wives to their husbands in effect endorse the patriarchal structure of marriage that was pervasive in Paul’s day.”

S 40 “Payne argues that the call for wives to submit to their husbands is culturally limited, for Paul doesn’t draw on creation in Eph 5:22–33 or Col 3:18–19.”

Unlike the implication of S’s “for” MW does not make this argument, nor does MW characterize Paul’s call for wives to submit to their husband as culturally limited. MW 273 states, “Ephesians 5:21–33 and Col 3:18–19, however, say nothing about creation,” precisely in order to correct the opposite and textually baseless allegation of people like George W. Knight III in RBMW 177. The OT and NT passages that do mention creation do not teach or logically entail a hierarchy of male authority based on creation. MW 41–54, 176–81, 195–98, and 399–415 argue that attempts to read affirmations of male headship into these texts are of dubious validity and misconstrue the overall thrust of the creation narratives.

S 40–41 “Payne argues that … the Pauline resistance to hierarchy is evident in his call for Philemon to free Onesimus and for slaves to avail themselves of freedom if possible (1 Cor 7:21).”

MW does argue that Paul used all his and the church’s influence to pressure Philemon to receive his slave Onesimus back “forever no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother … both in the material and spiritual realms” (Phmn 15–16), cf. MW 90–92. MW never argues, however, that Paul opposed hierarchy per se, nor does it ever speak of “Pauline resistance to hierarchy.” To the contrary, Paul repeatedly calls on children to obey parents (e.g. Eph 6:1–2), on believers to submit to Christ’s authority (e.g. Phil 2:9–10), to governing authorities (e.g. Rom 13:1–7; Titus 3:1), and to church leadership (e.g. 1 Cor 16:16). He encourages elders to “rule well” (e.g. 1 Tim 5:17) and describes church leaders, including Phoebe, as “standing over” others (Rom 16:2; 1 Thess 5:12). Indeed, Paul argues for his own apostolic authority (e.g. 2 Cor 12:11–12; 13:10; 1 Thess 2:6). MW argues not that Paul opposes hierarchy, but rather that Paul opposes the exclusion of entire classes of people (gentiles, slaves, women) from full fellowship, including leadership.

S 41 “Payne argues that the text on marriage is cultural since Paul doesn’t mention creation.”

Nowhere does MW argue that Eph 5:21–33 is “cultural since Paul doesn’t mention creation” or even that the application of this text is culturally limited, as is evident in MW 271–90. Understanding its cultural context helps explain why Paul wrote what he did and how following what he commands fit cultural demands then, but this does not mean that Paul’s commands have no ongoing relevance or that we can ignore these commands today.

S 42 “Payne contends that 1 Tim 5:13 demonstrates that women were propagating the heresy.”

MW never makes such a claim, but does use 1 Tim 5:13 as contributing evidence for it.

S 42 “Payne contends that … the word phlyaroi in the verse [1 Tim 5:13] designates an aberrant philosophy or teaching.”

MW never contends that phlyaroi designates an aberrant philosophy or teaching. See the next entry.

S 42 “Payne’s arguments here [regarding phlyaroi] are quite weak. For example, in 4 Macc 5:11 the term modifies “philosophy,” indicating that from the speaker’s perspective the philosophy is foolish. But it does not follow from this that the adjective itself denotes false teaching.”

MW never states that the adjective itself denotes false teaching. To the contrary, MW 301–2 cites the meaning of φλύαροι directly from LSJ 1946, “silly talk, foolery, nonsense, tattler, babbler.” MW cites examples for every statement it makes about this adjective, and it argues from context to support the meaning in 1 Tim 5:13,“talk nonsense” or “rubbish.” MW shows how this meaning fits this context most naturally.

S 42 “The verb ‘permit’ is regularly used to denote temporary restrictions according to Payne.”

MW never states that this verb “denotes” temporary restrictions. What MW 320 does demonstrate is that “Every occurrence of ἐπιτρέπω in the Greek OT refers to a specific situation, never to a universally applicable permission. Similarly, the vast majority of the NT occurrences of ἐπιτρέπω clearly refer to a specific time or for a short or limited time duration only.”

S 42 “[A]ccording to Payne [i]t is illegitimate to derive from the present indicative a command that continues to be binding.”

MW never states this. MW 320–25 discusses this.

S 43 “Against Payne, the present tense of “I do not permit” (v. 12) and the so-called intrinsic meaning of the term (as if the term itself denotes a temporary restriction) must not be pressed.” 

Nowhere does MW refer to the “intrinsic meaning” of ἐπιτρέπω. Nor does MW state or imply that the term itself denotes a temporary restriction. MW 319–35 does, however, show that the preponderant use of this verb throughout the Greek Bible favors a present prohibition over a universal prohibition. MW stresses that the present indicative, not just the present tense, is the issue at hand. To excise the “indicative” portion of MW’s argument is to misrepresent it. Cf. MW’s discussion on p. 320 n. 20 of Daniel Wallace’s Grammar, page 225 n. 30, which makes this same error.

S 43 “Whether the command is binding long term must be assessed in context; it

cannot be decided by the present tense of the verb or what the term means elsewhere.”

This gives the false impression that MW argues that one can determine whether the command is binding long term by the present tense of the verb or what the term means elsewhere. MW does not argue that these factors exclude the possibility of a permanent injunction. Typical word usage and typical use of the present indicative (MW stresses the present indicative, not just present) are relevant factors that should be given their full weight regarding this question, and they clearly weigh in favor of a present rather than a permanent universal injunction, as MW 319–35 makes abundantly clear.

S 43 “Payne thinks that 2 Tim 2:2 is just personal discipleship, but this probably reflects the popular evangelicalism of our day. What Paul has in mind is the correct teaching based on the apostolic deposit that should be passed on to the next generation (2 Tim 1:12, 14; 2:2).”

MW 320–25 does not write that 2 Tim 2:2 is “just” personal discipleship, but its wording shows that personal discipleship is an appropriate application. Paul commands Timothy, “what you have heard from me through many witnesses, pass on (παράθου) to faithful people (ἀνθπώποις, not “men,” ἄνδροι, limited to males), who will be able to teach others also.” Nothing in this command restricts the means of doing this to public teaching. Indeed, it is a general command to “pass on,” not a specific command to “teach publicly in church assemblies.”  Furthermore, Paul specifies its audience as “faithful people who will be able to teach others also,” which suggests a specific audience more targeted than typical church assemblies. Its content is as broad as “what you have heard from me through many witnesses.” What Timothy is to “pass on” includes not only doctrine but also matters of practice in light of 2 Tim 1:13, “Follow the pattern of the sound words you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.” Since the command itself “pass on” normally entails various forms of communication and since it has a specific audience, “faithful persons,” it makes sense to understand the goal, that, they, “will be able to teach others also,” to refer similarly to “teaching” in the broad sense, not restricted to public teaching in church assemblies.

S 44 “Payne maintains that the “for” (gar) in v. 13 is illustrative rather than causal.”

MW does not even mention “illustrative” in this context. MW 401 argues the opposite: “It is appropriate to look for a reason when a command is followed by a γάρ clause. The one other parallel in Paul’s letters, 1 Cor 11:8 and 12, and Philo’s QG 1.27 also argue that since woman was formed from the side of man, woman should “honor man.” See the full discussion of this “for” at MW 399–407.

3. In five additional instances, S attributes to MW an argument that MW does not make, then attacks that argument.

S 35 “Nor does the reference to prophecy prove Payne’s thesis [that mutual submission applies to believing spouses].”

The chapter on Ephesians 5, MW 271–90, makes no attempt to prove mutual submission based on women prophesying. This chapter does not even use the noun “prophecy” or the verb “prophesy.” Even the complementarians George W. Knight III in “Husbands and Wives,” RBMW, 165–67 and 492 n. 1 and James Bassett Hurley in Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective, 139–41, agree with Payne against Schreiner that the submission of wives to husbands in Eph 5:22 is linked to the principle of mutual submission in 5:21, giving one instance of it. Indeed, the verb is stated only in verse 21 in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, P⁴⁶ B Clement Origen, confirming the dependence of verse 22 on 21 within the same sentence. Cf. MW 271–90.

S 40 “Payne [says]… that Paul would not exhort wives to speak with their husbands since some of the husbands might be unqualified. This kind of extraneous objection could be raised against just about anything in the scriptures, and it is quite surprising that Payne thinks the argument is worth stating.”

MW does not say “that Paul would not exhort wives to speak with their husbands since some of the husbands might be unqualified.” See the explanation of MW’s point in the next entry and below, pp. 20–21, regarding S 38–39 for more detail.

If these verses were about Paul’s command to judge the validity (διακρινέτωσαν) of prophecies, as Schreiner alleges, one would expect its example (v. 35) to address this issue. 1 Cor 14:35, however, mentions nothing about judging the validity of prophecies. It is instead about women asking questions out of a desire to learn. This is no extraneous objection, but exposes a crucial weakness with Schreiner’s interpretation that 14:34–35 is only about women judging the validity of prophecies from 14:29, not other kinds of speech.

S 41 “Payne maintains that … [w]omen are prohibited from speaking because they were uneducated and purveyors of the false teaching (1 Tim 2:14).”

This misconstrues MW’s logic. MW does not argue that Paul prohibited women from teaching because they were uneducated, but rather that their lack of education was a “contributing factor” to their being duped. It is doubtful that Paul gave this prohibition because women were uneducated, or that this was even a significant cause, for Paul nowhere else makes such a prohibition because any group is uneducated. MW 335 states rather, “A probable contributing factor to Paul’s restriction was that most women in Ephesus from either a Jewish or Gentile background would have had little knowledge of the Scriptures and the Christian message. Paul’s most complete description of the false teachers concludes, “They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm” (1:7 NIV). This description fits women in the Ephesian church who, because of inadequate Christian education, were deceived by the false teaching. Particularly significant in this statement is the implication that their error was not in desiring to be teachers of the law, but rather in teaching without adequate knowledge. Until they are properly taught, they should not make blundering attempts at teaching, but rather learn, just as 2:11–12 requires.

S 43 “[Payne says that] Paul prohibited women from teaching in 1 Tim 2:12 because they were duped by and spreading false teaching and were uneducated.”

See S 41 immediately above, regarding: “because they were uneducated.”

S 44–45 [Regarding] “Payne’s interpretation of 1 Tim 2:14 … Nor is it plausible to conclude that the women of Ephesus were banned from teaching because of a lack of education.”

This misconstrues the logic of MW’s interpretation, as explained regarding the similar allegation shortly above regarding S 41 on p. 13 “because they … were uneducated.”

4. In six additional instances, S accuses MW of doing something it does not do.

S 37 “[I]nconsistently he  [Payne] defines ‘nature’ (1 Cor 11:14) in terms of the ‘established order of things’ (204).”

S accuses Payne of inconsistency here, but it is not inconsistent to interpret word usage based on the immediate context. Rom 1:26–27 uses “nature” to refer to biology in describing homosexual acts: “even their females changed the natural [τὴν φυσικήν] use into the [use] against nature [παρὰ φύσιν].” 1 Cor 11:14, however, is not an appeal to nature per se, but rather to what is perceived in their cultural setting as natural because it upholds rather than undermines the actual distinction of the sexes in nature. It is precisely this understanding of nature as natural expectation within the culture that fits perfectly with all the words Paul uses in 1 Cor 11:14–15. Nature teaches what is “degrading” to a man and what is “glory” to a woman. “Degrading” and “glory” are terms describing cultural perception that could not be deduced solely from the natural world. See MW 200–204.

S 37 “Payne … argues that there is no evidence that it was dishonorable for a woman to pray without a head covering in Greco-Roman or Jewish culture.”

MW does not argue that there is no such evidence in Greco-Roman or Jewish culture. MW 158–59 discusses Plutarch Roman Questions 267A–B, and MW 162 cites b. Ketub. 72 a, b, though this evidence is late, and acknowledges the seclusion of women extolled by certain Jewish authors. In contrast to the paucity of even ambiguous evidence that it might have been dishonorable for a woman to pray without a garment head covering, MW 165 concludes “There was in Paul’s day an overwhelming consensus in Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures that women should have their hair done up.”

S 41 “Payne confuses function with meaning here, as if the former determines the latter. Once again, it makes perfect sense for Jesus as our master and Lord to support and nourish us.”

MW is not confusing “function with meaning” here. MW 283–90 simply acknowledges the normal use of apposition to specify meaning. If Paul had intended “head” in the sense of “master” he could have written, “Christ the head of the church, he the master or authority (ἐξουσία) of the body,” but he did not. Paul’s following explication of what Christ did as savior identifies that Christ loved the church gave himself up for her. These point to Christ as the source of life and nourishment of the church. They do not focus on his lordship (though of course, it is true that Christ is Lord). MW simply identifies how Paul explains what he means by “head” in terms of the function of Christ as savior as a model for how husbands should relate to their wives.

S 42 “[H]e relies on parallels and questionable exegesis (cf. his rather strange reading of “profess” in 1 Tim 2:10) to establish his conclusions.”

This accuses MW’s reading of “profess” as “strange.” What is “strange” about accepting the standard lexical definition “profess” for both ἐπαγγελλομέναις in 1 Tim 2:10 and its parallel use (ἐπαγγελλόμενοι) describing false teachers in 1 Tim 6:21, which the table of parallel terminology does on page 300 describing women and false teachers? BAG 280 and BDAG 356 (both citing this verse) also define this word: “profess, lay claim to, give oneself out as an expert in someth.,” as does LSJ 602 “profess, make profession of.” Schreiner demands specific parallels. False teachers are described as 6:21 “professing” (ἐπαγγελλόμενοι) knowledge. Women are described using the same participle but with the feminine ending in 2:10 as “professing (ἐπαγγελλομέναις) godliness.” Even the word “godliness” (θεοσέβειαν) parallels the description of the false teachers who have a form of “godliness” (εὐσεβείας) but deny its power in 2 Tim 3:5.

S 44 “Payne’s … valiant effort to wash out the meaning ‘exercise authority’ is doubtful.”

MW makes no effort to wash out any valid meaning of αὐθεντεῖν. To the contrary, MW 373–80 identifies the meaning “exercise authority” in various later church writers. MW 361–97 assesses every early instance of αὐθεντεῖν and shows that there is not a single instance where it can be demonstrated to mean “exercise authority” prior to ca AD 370. Schreiner appeals to Baldwin, but not even Baldwin, Women in the Church, 51, includes the meaning Köstenberger alleges, “exercise authority” or “have authority” in “the range of meanings that might be appropriate in 1 Timothy 2:12.” Although MW 373 points out that Schreiner adopts a meaning other than the range of possible meanings identified by Baldwin, Schreiner’s review ignores this. He writes as though the meaning “exercise authority” is settled even though neither he nor his colleague Baldwin has established a single instance of αὐθεντεῖν with this meaning prior to ca AD 370. The meaning S assumes is not even listed in BDAG 150, which lists the meaning of αὐθεντεῖν as “to assume a stance of independent authority.”  “Independent authority” is authority that is not dependent on others delegating or authorizing it. It is self-assumed authority taken on one’s own initiative. S misrepresents MW’s meticulous documentation showing that every early instance of αὐθεντέω meaning “assume authority” refers to the assumption of authority without proper authorization. Of all the examples meaning “assume authority” listed in MW 385–91, the only instances of assumption of legitimate authority use a related but different word, αὐθεντίζω, that LSJ 275 defines as meaning “take in hand,” citing, as MW 390 does, the 6^th to 7^th century ecclesiastical papyrus BGU 103.3. PGL 262 lists it as a separate entry and identifies it as “a variant of αὐθεντέω.” In his July 21, 1993 letter cited on MW 391, Werner states: “initiative, lack of delegation from above, is a common component in all the examples, contradicted only Hesychius’ exousiazein.” Schreiner either did not notice this or distorts it by writing, “Assuming or taking authority is not necessarily a bad thing if one has a position of authority” (S 44). The apparently universal early use of this word when it means “assume authority” refers to people who did not have a position of authority, but nevertheless assumed it.

S 44 “At the same time he [Payne] washes away what the verse actually says, i.e., women are not to teach or exercise authority over men.”

In fact, 1 Tim 2:12 does not use the Pauline word for “to exercise authority” (ἐξουσιάζω). It uses a different word that in Paul’s day normally meant “to assume authority without proper authorization” and MW 361–97 shows that in surviving literature from before ca AD 370 it is never clearly used with the meaning  “to exercise authority.” Schreiner evades this issue by stating, “Space is lacking to interact with Payne’s study of authentein in detail.” He does not cite a single Greek reference or a single study that supports his allegation for a meaning that is not even listed in BDAG. Furthermore, as MW 337–59 argues, and neither Schreiner nor Köstenberger has refuted, οὐδέ typically in Paul’s letters joins two elements to convey a single idea, not two separate ideas as Schreiner interprets this verse.

5. In three additional instances, S says that MW does not do something it does do.

S 36 “Payne’s discussion of the word “head” does not advance the discussion.”

What other publication provides such an extensive list of instances with proper documentation where κεφαλή means “source”? What other publication gives such clear and concise arguments from their contexts that κεφαλή means “source”? What other publication identifies as many misrepresentations of the data by proponents of the view that “authority” is a common meaning of “head” in Greek literature?

S 41 “Payne … fails to see that Paul grounds the marriage relationship in what is transcendent rather than in what is cultural.”

To the contrary, MW 277–90 argues that Paul’s vision of marriage is based on Christ’s relationship to the church, concluding on 290, “Christ is the source of life, love, and nourishment for the church as husbands should be for their wives.”

S 41 “Payne’s work on 1 Timothy 2 is not dramatically different from what is argued by many other egalitarian commentators.”

If that is so, who are these “many other egalitarian commentators” who argue that αὐθεντεῖν here means “assume authority without proper authorization”? or argue that Paul is only prohibiting women from teaching that is combined with assuming authority over a man? or lay out the case based on an examination of all Paul’s uses of οὐδέ that Paul typically thereby joins two elements to convey a single idea?

6. In one additional instance, S overstates what MW argues, then criticizes MW for overstating its case.

S 36 “[Payne] argues that ‘source’ was a common meaning for the term ‘head’… Payne actually gives very few examples.”

Although MW 123–28 cites 40 examples of “head” meaning “source” in Greek literature, it does not say this meaning is “common.” Instead, it affirms that this is an “established” meaning of the word in Greek, and on p. 123 cites nine Greek lexicons confirming this meaning of κεφαλή.

7. In two additional instances, S misrepresents the scope of MW’s argument.

S 36 “there may be a few examples where kephalē means “source,” but Payne actually gives very few examples (which are themselves debatable) to substantiate his thesis.”

MW 124–28 cites 40 examples, providing evidence that in each, κεφαλή means “source.” MW 127 notes 11 other examples cited with this meaning by Marcus Barth, Ephesians, 1:185. Schreiner himself writes in “Women in Ministry,” 228 n. 99, “Probably … ‘source’ [is] involved” in 1 Cor 11:3.”

S 37 “Strikingly, Payne says almost nothing about 1 Cor 11:8–9; he devotes only one page to it in nine chapters on 1 Cor 11:2–16!”

In fact, although these two short verses have no disputed grammar or syntax, and so do not require extended exegesis, MW shows how important they are in their context on pages 130–31, 136, 138, 177, 180–81, 193, 195–98, 319, 351, 403, 405, and 443.

8. In twelve additional instances, S removes crucial elements of MW’s statements, making them sound foolish.

S 36 “He [Payne] suggests the meaning ‘crown’ for Eph 1:22 and Col 2:10 where the meaning is obviously ‘authority over’ since Paul refers to Christ’s headship over demonic powers.”

MW 128 n. 72 states, rather, “The meaning ‘top’ or ‘crown’ fits the remaining two: Eph 1:22 and Col 2:10.” “Top” is a standard meaning of κεφαλή and is indicated by its association with “over” (ὑπέρ) and “he has put all things under (ὑπό) his feet” in Eph 1:22. The sense of “top” is reinforced by v. 21 “far above (ὑπεράνω) all rule and authority.” This same note 72 refers to the detailed treatment of these passages in P. B. Payne, “What Does Kephalē Mean in the New Testament? Response,” in Women, Authority and the Bible (ed. Alvera Mickelsen; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 118–32, 131, which states “that the very nature of the things over which Christ is top (“all rule and authority”) made it sufficiently clear to his Greek audience that Christ’s being top entails his having authority.… The idea of a gift to the church seems to be primary; see Barth, Ephesians 1–4, p. 158. This earlier article argues that it would be a mistake to attribute as a separate meaning of “head” each of the categories over which someone as top is “head.” Just as it would be wrong to assume that “head” means “highest GPA” because someone is “head of her class” or that that “head” means “best shot-putter” because a shot-putter is “head of his field,” so also it does not necessarily follow that “head” means “authority” because “God has made Christ head over all things for the church.” Unlike English and Hebrew, where “leader” or “person having authority” is a dominant metaphorical meaning of “head,” the paucity of evidence for the meaning “authority” for “head” in native Greek literature is such that this meaning or anything like it is not listed in most classical Greek lexicons, including LSJ. See MW 117–37.

S 40 “When Payne appeals to the fact that vv. 34–35 are missing from Clement of Alexandria and the Apostolic Fathers, he relies on an argument from silence.”

MW 250–51 argues on the basis of Clement of Alexandria’s express statements. Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3:11, explicitly states, “Woman and man are to go to church … embracing silence … fit to pray to God … as they fashion themselves in the church for the sake of gravity.” This passage also encourages women to “pray veiled,” alluding to 1 Cor 11:5, 13. This shows that Clement is concerned with women’s behavior in church. Clement cites elsewhere from 1 Cor 14:6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 20; 15:32, 33, 34, 41, 50, 55 but never any part of 14:34–35. If Clement’s text of 1 Corinthians had included 14:34–35, one would expect some mention of its restrictions when his discussion of the behavior of women specifically mentions “embracing silence.” Instead, however, Clement writes of both “woman and man … embracing silence” and of women praying, which seem incongruent with a text including verses 34–35. It is the apparent conflict between Clement’s call to both men and woman “to go to church in silence,” his many comments in this passage about worship and its reference to women praying veiled, along with his many citations from other parts of 1 Cor 14 that provide evidence that Clement’s text of 1 Corinthians omitted 14:34–35. MW’s argument is based on Clement’s explicit statements that affirm what 14:34–35 prohibits. Clement’s respect for the authority of Scripture indicate that he would not have done this if 14:34–35 had been in his text.

S 40 “The argument from silence seems a bit desperate given the partial reference to biblical texts in the church fathers.”

See the preceding explanation that MW’s argument is based on Clement’s explicit statements that affirm what 14:34–35 prohibits, which he is unlikely to have done if 14:34–35 had been in his text.

S 40 “Payne’s objection regarding the law is overly simplistic.”

It is Schreiner who is overly simplistic in depicting MW’s nuanced and carefully qualified statements, explained in the footnotes in MW 258–61.

S 40–41 “Payne argues … The word ‘head’ in Eph 5:23 means ‘source’ since it is in apposition to the word ‘Savior.’”

MW does argue that Paul by apposition explains the meaning of “head” as “savior” in Eph 5:23, but MW 287 explains that “Christ as ‘head-savior’ of his ‘body,’ modeling how husbands should be ‘head’ to their wives is not a dead metaphor with a simple established meaning, but is an original living metaphor.” MW 288 further explains, “Paul’s metaphor effectively resonates with his readers, inviting these associations [head as source of nourishment, alerting the body to danger and protecting it, etc.] because ‘source’ was an established meaning of ‘head’” (cf. MW 123–28). Of all the meanings of κεφαλή (”head”) listed in lexicons, “source” is by far the closest in concept to what Paul describes here. Christ is literally the source of the church since he brought it into being, but it is clear from Paul’s following concepts that he also, and perhaps primarily, has in mind that Christ is a source of spiritual nourishment for the church. It is this latter aspect that applies perfectly to the husband-wife relationship. Husbands are not literally the source of their wives, but as Christ loves and nourishes the church, they should love and nourish their wives. The parallel use of “head” in Col 1:18 confirms that Paul could use this “head” image to convey an idea related to “source.”

S also misrepresents MW’s view by capitalizing “Savior.” MW 284 n. 45 specifically argues that since “savior” here has no article and is clearly descriptive of Christ’s life-giving work, not an established title, it should not be capitalized. Paul’s only other use of “savior” prior to the Pastoral Epistles, Phil 3:20, also has no article. In contrast, “Savior” is a title with an article and should be capitalized in 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; and 3:6. Thus, in several respects (see the next entry), this statement in S attributes positions to MW that it does not espouse.

S 40–41 “Payne argues … Husbands, as the source of their wives, nourish and support their wives.”

MW never describes husbands as “the source of their wives.” Cf. the prior entry. MW 288 explains that as the church depends on Christ, “Wives depended on their husbands as the source of food, clothing, shelter, the physical source of her children, and her emotional source of love.”

S 41 “Payne … makes the mistake of thinking that the word in apposition (“Savior”) demonstrates that the word “head” means source.”

MW does not argue that the word “head” means source in Eph 5:23. Cf. the previous two entries.

S 42 “But the parallels must be more specific and sharper to establish Payne’s thesis.”

MW 299–304 identifies many specific and sharp parallels. Its goal is to try to understand the situation Paul is addressing based on his own letter. For instance, 1 Timothy describes women using terminology paralleling all of the descriptions of the false teachers. It does not describe men other than the false teachers similarly. Women are prohibited from assuming authority to teach a man. Men are not. Women are identified as duped by the false teachers. Men are not. Actual deception of women and their involvement in conveying it is the most natural reason for 1 Tim 2:12’s prohibition based on the woman’s “deception.” The summary of the false teaching as “old womanish myths” surely hints at women’s involvement. Any one of these in isolation does not by itself constitute proof that women were conveying the false teaching. Their cumulative effect, however, gives the strong impression that women were the primary group that were duped by the false teaching and that after the expulsion of the original false teachers, they became the primary promulgators of the false teaching. This is the most natural reading of the letter as a whole.

S 43 “[E]ven though Titus 2:4–5 says the older women should teach the younger women, Payne says that the purpose clause here is not exhaustive, and so men could also be taught by women.… Does Payne really think these arguments are persuasive? His case seems even weaker when he advocates arguments like these.”

Schreiner ignores the context for MW’s evidence that “the purpose clause here is not exhaustive.” MW is responding to Moo’s allegation that “the teaching activity of these women is explicitly restricted to the younger women” even though this verse contains no explicit restriction such as “only other women.” In response to Moo’s reading into this passage what is not there, MW 330 states, “Purpose clauses are rarely exhaustive.… Paul’s praise for Timothy’s grandmother Lois and mother Eunice [2 Tim 1:5] for teaching him the Holy Scriptures [2 Tim 3:14–16] shows that younger women were not the only group older women should teach what is excellent.…

Yes, I do think this argument is persuasive. S 43 acknowledges, “Yes, there are contexts in which women can teach men. They can share informal instruction from the word in the assembly (1 Cor 14:26; Col 3:16) in the same way as all other believers. They can teach men in private settings (Acts 18:26).” Consequently, Schreiner should understand the validity of MW’s objection to interpretations that say that women may teach only younger women and not ridicule its statement as though it is naïve. Note, however, that Schreiner substitutes “informal instruction” where Paul used “teaching” in both 1 Cor 14:26 and Col 3:16. S 43 alleges, “public and regular instruction is prohibited,” but surely both 1 Cor 14:26 and Col 3:16 refer to what Paul regards as normal and regular practice in public worship.

S 43 “In the same way, he [Payne] says that Timothy’s mother and grandmother continued to teach him when he became an adult. Does Payne really think these arguments are persuasive? His case seems even weaker when he advocates arguments like these.”

Schreiner misrepresents MW as making the positive assertion, “Timothy’s mother and grandmother continued to teach him when he became an adult.” In fact, MW 330 states, “‘from infancy,’ [is] a phrase expressing when their teaching began but giving no indication that it stopped at any point in Timothy’s life. The implication is natural that these women, who had made known the Holy Scriptures to Timothy, used them for ‘teaching’ (3:16) as well as for ‘rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.’ The association of ‘teaching’ with these other functions that typically occur outside of formal settings implies that teaching, too, in Paul’s usage is not restricted to formal settings.” Yes, I do think this argument is persuasive. See the entry immediately above.

S 44 “Nor, says Payne, is it clear what Paul is saying if he restricts women based on the created order, for elsewhere Paul argues for the equality of men and women.”

MW does not argue this based on the equality of men and women. It argues based on Paul’s closest parallel passage defending a restriction on women based on an appeal to Eve being formed from Adam. MW 403 argues, “The best basis for understanding 1 Tim 2:13 is Paul’s argument that woman comes from man in 1 Cor 11:8 and 12. Paul argues that woman should respect man since he is the source from which God made woman (1 Cor 11:3–12). Similarly, in 1 Tim 2:13 man being “formed” first, then woman, implies woman being “formed” out of man and so points to the respect woman owes man as her source. … [This understanding] provides appropriate support for every part of 1 Tim 2:11–12.”

S 44 “The Lord created man first to signify male headship in the church. Payne’s claim that there was not preaching in Genesis is irrelevant, for the order of creation communicates an abiding principle.”

MW does argue that there is an abiding principle, the same principle that Paul explains in 1 Cor 11, that woman should respect man, from whom she was created. Schreiner shows no evidence from the Genesis narrative that the “Lord created man first to signify male headship in the church.” Does Schreiner think Paul’s statement applies only in the church, but not in business, government, and society, a distinction Grudem espouses? It is specifically to highlight this weakness in Grudem’s position that MW 403 points out (it is not just “Payne’s claim”): “there is no assembled congregation in the creation narratives that could suggest this restriction.” John Ball in 1381 challenged a similar unsupported appeal to creation order to establish a specific hierarchy of authority unrelated to the creation accounts (the authority of the aristocracy) by stating, “When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?” MW substitutes “preacherman” for “gentleman” in order to show the parallel between two illegitimate claims. The creation narrative does not mention an aristocracy and so cannot legitimately be appealed to as establishing a creation order granting aristocracy authority over peasants. Likewise, the creation narrative does not mention the church and so cannot legitimately be appealed to as establishing a creation order granting men authority over women specifically in the church.

9. In seven additional instances, S mischaracterizes what MW does.

S 36 “[Payne] underestimates the evidence from the LXX, for there are more than six instances where kephalē has the meaning ‘authority over.’”

MW 119 n. 10 does not estimate the evidence; it identifies all six and explains why every other proposed example does not qualify. Schreiner does not cite even one new example.

S 38–39 Schreiner fails to identify the central issue of MW’s fourth internal argument for interpolation: “why would Paul command wives to ask their husbands at home when their husbands may be unlearned and even unbelievers?”

MW’s point, stated on p. 257 is, “Verses 34–35 conflict with the goal of instruction in church. … The central thrust of this chapter, summarized in 14:26 and 31 … is that in church ‘everyone may be instructed’.” Verses 34–35, however, prohibit women who wish to learn from asking questions in church. This undermines the goal of learning in church.

MW 221 n. 21 specifically argues that the author of verse 35 did not intend it to cover all possible cases, but rather to show that women must be silent in church even when their motive is the pure desire to learn. The problem with the intent of the author of 1 Cor 14:34–35 is that it undermines Paul’s expressed goal of instruction in church. The fact that it is unreasonable to assume that a woman’s husband would be better prepared to answer questions than the church as a whole, especially not unbelieving husbands, shows how important it is for learning to take place in church. This is reinforced by Paul’s statement in 14:29 that other prophets in the group, which would include women, should provide a check against prophecies that might be misleading, a check lacking at home.

S 40 “[Payne’s external] arguments supporting an interpolation are untenable.”

Just because one or two people challenge a position does not mean that the arguments for it are untenable. Neither Schreiner nor the people to whom he appeals have demonstrated that any of the external arguments in MW 227–53 is untenable. If they were all untenable, why would the majority of text-critical analyses of this passage conclude that it is an interpolation? MW 235–40, 248, 250 gives clear answers to Niccum’s objections. Each of Peter Head’s objections is answered at http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Critique-of-Vaticanus-Marginalia-15Apr2010.pdf. This shows the implausibility of Head’s alternative hypothesis. Regarding errors in Kloha’s statements as reported by Schreiner, see comments above on p. 9 regarding S 40 and below on pp. 32–33, the five entries from S 39–40.

S 40 “Payne’s arguments from internal evidence are quite subjective and should be rejected as special pleading.”

MW113–215’s argument that 1 Cor 11:2–16 affirms women prophesying shares this conclusion with virtually all scholarly assessment of this passage. That 1 Cor 14:34–35, in contrast, prohibits women from speaking is the obvious reading of the text, as evidenced in its explication by, e.g. Origen and Chrysostom. It is simply not true that this is “special pleading.” Each of the nine internal evidences for interpolation MW 253–65 cites is based on objective features in the text.

S 40 “Even Payne admits that what is written here is rather close to what we find in 1 Tim 2:11–14.”

MW 262–63 argues that “the crucial vocabulary of 14:34–35 reflects 1 Tim 2:12 and its surrounding verses, but restricts women’s activities more than 1 Timothy does. This is not an admission that Paul subordinated a weak social group. It is an argument that an interpolation based on 1 Tim 2:12 best explains the remarkable parallels in vocabulary and grammar with 1 Cor 14:34–35.

S 41 “Payne’s support for the interpretation “source” is also flawed.”

Schreiner appeals to Fitzmyer as an authority regarding the meaning of kephalē. MW 127 states, “Fitzmyer argues that each of the metaphors cited above mean “source” and concludes, ‘These examples show that kephalē could indeed be used in the sense of ‘source.’ ” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Kephalē in I Corinthians 11:3,” Int 47 (1993): 52–59, 54, 58 and Joseph A. Fitzmyer in “Another Look at ΚΕΦΑΛΗ in 1 Corinthians 11.3,” NTS 35 (1989): 503–11, 509. Is Fitzmyer’s evidence for the meaning “source” also flawed even though Schreiner appeals to both of these articles in his footnote 2? Is evidence for the meaning “source” in the most authoritative classical Greek Lexicon, LSJ, also flawed?

LSJ lists forty-eight figurative translations for κεφαλή, but neither it nor its supplement by Renehan, nor the lexicons by Moulton and Milligan, Friedrich Preisigke, Pierre Chantraine, S. C. Woodhouse, or any of the thirteen additional lexicons cited by Richard S. Cervin [“Does Κεφαλή mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal,” TJ 10 NS (1989): 85–112, 86–87] give even one example of κεφαλή that implies authority. Schlier’s article in the TDNT 3:674 concludes that in secular usage this word “is not employed for the head of a society. This is first found in the sphere of the Gk. OT.” Apart from a few NT lexicons, the vast majority of Greek lexicons list no such meaning. Cf. the detailed documentation in MW 121–23.

S 36 states, “Grudem has carefully sifted the evidence in three major articles, showing that the meaning ‘authority over’ for kephalē is well attested.” In spite of the explicit statements in so many lexicons to the contrary, Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than One Hundred Disputed Questions (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 2004) 206 writes, “All the recognized lexicons (dictionaries) for ancient Greek, or their editors, now give kephalē the meaning ‘person in authority over’ or something similar; but none give the meaning ‘source.’” For a detailed refutation of Grudem’s specific examples, see Richard S. Cervin, “Does Κεφαλή mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal,” TJ 10 NS (1989): 85–112 and Gilbert Bilezikian, “A Critical Examination of Wayne Grudem’s Treatment of Kephalē, in Ancient Greek Texts,” in Beyond Sex Roles (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 215–52. P. G. W. Glare, to whom Grudem appeals, also disagrees with many of the examples that Grudem says mean “leader”: “Where I would agree with Cervin is that in many of the examples, and I think all the Plutarch ones, we are dealing with similes or comparisons and the word itself [κεφαλή] is used in a literal sense.” This is cited in Wayne Grudem, “The Meaning of κεφαλή [‘Head’]: An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged,” Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than One Hundred Disputed Questions (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 2004), 552–99, 588. On May 1, 1991, Cervin submitted “ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΕΦΑΛΗ: A Rejoinder” (unpublished, 1991), 1–39 to Trinity Journal, but its editor, Douglas J. Moo, refused to publish it even after devoting two articles totaling 111 pages to Grudem’s view and only 34 pages to Cervin’s.

S 44 Ironically, although himself deriving a principle specifically regarding “the church” from the Genesis narrative, Schreiner writes, “When Payne says that women are to respect men as their source, he imports an idea that is not stated in the text.”

The text of Genesis to which Paul appeals, however, does state that woman “was formed” from man, and 1 Tim 2:13 clearly alludes to this by stating that Eve “was formed” after Adam. In both cases “formed” implies that man was the source from which woman was formed. Furthermore, Paul in 1 Cor 11 explicitly identifies the problem as one of shame, and women letting their hair down was an established symbol of sexual freedom that disrespected any woman’s husband. Consequently, it is a natural corollary to understand Paul’s reasoning that woman was “formed” after (and from) man as an appeal for women to respect man as their source, not to disrespect their own husbands by letting their hair down while leading worship.

10. In one additional instance, S uses innuendo to make it seem like MW advocates a foolish position that MW does not state or support.

S 37 “[T]he idea that 1 Cor 15:28 refers to ‘the Godhead’ rather than the Father is rather strange and fits awkwardly with the idea that Christ submits to God. Is the verse saying that Christ submits to himself insofar as he is God? Such an interpretation seems quite improbable.”

This gives the false impression that MW argues that “Christ submits to God,” namely that the “him” to whom the Son “will be subjected” refers to “the Godhead.” MW specifically argues, rather, that the introduction of “the God” (ὁ θεός) in the final clause of 1 Cor 15:28 “may be better translated: ‘in order that the Godhead (ὁ θεός) may be all in all’.” 1 Cor 15:28 states, “When all things are subjected to him [the Son], the Son himself will also be subjected [future passive] to him [the Father, as in v. 24] who put everything under him, in order that the Godhead may be all in all.” MW 135 n. 88 argues from the future passive that the subjection of the Son to the Father is a future event, not an eternal state: “Robertson, Grammar, 871 states ‘that in the future passive we have with most verbs a purely punctiliar future.’ Ernest de Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898), 32 states, ‘any instance of the Predictive future not clearly progressive must be accounted as aoristic.’ MW 134–35 argues: “The shift from ‘God the Father’ in verse 24 to ‘the God’ in the final clause of verse 28 makes sense as indicating a shift in reference from the Father to the Godhead. This is also suggested by what it affirms, namely, ‘that the God may be all in all.’ This final statement, ‘that the God may be all in all,’ is more appropriate as an affirmation of the oneness and encompassing authority of the Godhead than as a restricted reference to the Father. Other statements by Paul show he did not believe that in the new age, God the Father would be everything to the exclusion of Christ. For instance, Romans 9:5 refers to Christ as ‘God over all, forever praised’.” To exclude the Son from “the God” in the final clause and to treat this as describing an eternal reality where God the Father, not including the Son, is “all in all” is contrary to orthodox Trinitarian theology.

11. In two additional instances, S misuses, and so apparently misunderstands, crucial terminology in MW.

S 44 Schreiner repeats Köstenberger’s misrepresentation of what MW means by “one idea.” He writes, “ ‘If there is a single idea, then the verse teaches ‘that women ought not to serve in authoritative church positions, whether by teaching men or by ruling (both functions are reserved for male elders)—two functions that are distinct yet closely related.’ Seeing a single idea, therefore, does not clearly support Payne’s idea.”

Shreiner and Köstenberger both describe as a “single idea” “two functions that are distinct.” If Paul is prohibiting two distinct things, “teaching men” and “ruling,” then he is not conveying a single idea as MW 337–59 explains it, but two ideas. If Schreiner had read MW carefully enough to understand that by “a single idea” it really means a single idea, not two ideas, he would have realized that seeing a single prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 clearly does support MW’s argument.

S 44 “Assuming or taking authority is not necessarily a bad thing if one has a position of authority.”

I apologize if I did not make it sufficiently clear that every example of αὐθεντέω meaning “assume authority” refers to the assumption of authority without proper authorization (see above, p. 15). S 44 confuses “exercising authority that one has been granted” and “assuming authority although one has not been granted it.” S 44 uses “assume authority” contrary to MW’s meticulous documentation showing that every early instance of αὐθεντέω meaning “assume authority” refers to the assumption of authority without proper authorization. MW 391 cites Werner’s July 21, 1993 letter: “initiative, lack of delegation from above, is a common component in all the examples, contradicted only Hesychius’ exousiazein.” Schreiner apparently did not notice this or chose to use MW’s terminology with a different meaning that conceals the heart of MW’s interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12. Cf. both entries referencing S 44 above on pp. 14–15.

12. In Ten Instances S Makes Unfair Generalizations about MW.

S 34 “One of the key principles of word study (which Payne too often ignores) is that words derive their meaning from context.”

Every one of the exegetical studies in MW stresses the meaning of words in context. Schreiner may disagree with its analysis or wish to lay greater emphasis on some parts of the context than others, but it is simply not true that MW too often ignores the context in assessing the meaning of words. Zondervan originally told me I could make the book as long as necessary in order to make it the definitive work on the subject. After I had submitted over 1000 pages of text for the book, however, they put a 450 pages limit on the text. In order to meet this new page limit, I had to cut the text to about a third its original length. Consequently, one should not assume that I ignored a particular aspect of a given context simply because MW does not give an expansive treatment of it.

S 41 “It seems that Payne has a tendency to accept too easily readings that are palatable to our culture.”

If that were my motivation, why would MW 141–46, 175–81 argue that in 1 Cor 11:4, 7–9, 14 Paul is arguing against men displaying effeminate hair because of its use at that time as an advertisement for homosexual relations? The fact is that it was my study of these texts that forced me to change my attitudes, not vice versa. I was very keen that my wife include in her vows that she would obey me. I was very happy to be the head of the house, having final say and authority. It was only after many years of study of Paul’s teachings that I became convinced that my cultural background affirming “male headship” did not accurately reflect the Scriptures on these matters.

S 41 “I should add at this point that Payne often fails to state, or addresses in a very cursory fashion, texts or arguments that support a complementarian view.”

MW 79–463 deals in detail with every Pauline text regarding women. Schreiner has not identified a single Pauline passage regarding women used by complementarians to support their view that MW ignores or addresses in a very cursory fashion. MW fairly assesses both the strengths (e.g. 373–74) and weaknesses of complementarian arguments. Unfortunately, Zondervan required the excision of about 500 pages of critique of complementarian arguments in order to meet MW’s current page length. I suspect Schreiner would have been less happy if there had been room for the more detailed critiques of complementarian interpretations.

S 42 “what Paul teaches in the letter stems from his worldview and theology and thus is rightly used today for the life and practice of churches (cf. also 1 Tim 3:14–15). Payne does not emphasize this latter truth sufficiently.”

MW lays great emphasis on the importance of understanding Paul’s particular statements from the context of his worldview and theology, e.g. MW 69–76. Furthermore, it stresses the importance of recognizing the principles underlying his particular statements specifically addressed to Timothy (cf. 1:2 “to Timothy” and 3:14–15 “I am writing these instructions to you [singular], so that, if I am delayed, you [singular] may know how to behave in the household of God.”) and stresses the applicability of his teachings today for the life and practice of churches. Nevertheless, it does not necessarily follow that what Paul wrote in the present indicative (2:12) specifically to Timothy automatically applies in all situations, including “today for the life and practice of churches.” The very different statements Paul gave to the churches in Corinth (1 Cor 14:26, “each has a teaching”) and Colossae (Col 3:16 “teach one another in all wisdom”) give evidence that 1 Tim 2:12 is a particular prohibition for a particular situation. Ironically, the passage Schreiner cites in support of this, 1 Tim 3:14–15, is a passage that Schreiner acknowledges on S 42 “is directed to a specific situation” and he writes that he agrees with me that: “Describing 1 Timothy as a manual of church order … does not fit precisely the purpose of the letter.”

S 42 “Payne does not pay sufficient attention to the context and draws unwarranted deductions.”

Anyone who reads MW knows that it pays extraordinarily close attention to the context of each passage it exegetes. Unlike S’s forty-one dubious assertions listed at the end of this critique, it explains why it draws its deductions. S’s example about phlyaroi in support of this allegation misrepresents MW, as shown in the last two S 42 entries above on p. 10, extending to p. 11.

S 43 repeats this allegation regarding epitrepō in 1 Tim 2:12: “what he [Payne] needs to do is to interpret the meaning of the verb in context.” MW 323–34 identifies eight exegetical indicators in the immediate and wider context that Paul did not intend a universal prohibition on women teaching. The following chapters show how this reading “I am not permitting” best fits the syntax of the verse, what is prohibited, and the reasons for the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:13–14.

S 42 “Payne often makes mistakes like this in defining words.”

The only example Schreiner cites (cf. above, the last two S 42 entries above on p. 10, extending to p. 11) misrepresents MW. As in this case, MW is extraordinarily careful throughout to define words in accordance with the support of standard lexicons. It does not, however, simply assume that lexicon entries are correct. Based on examination of word usage in their original contexts, MW 121–22 (cf. 117–37), 301 n. 22, and 433 n. 59 identify BDAG errors and MW 63 and 117–27 identify BDAG omissions.

S 42 “We must be careful and discriminate in our scholarship, so that we do not claim to know more than is warranted.”

This is why MW speaks regularly about “evidence” and “more natural readings” and almost never of “proof.” MW repeatedly argues precisely this point regarding many unwarranted assertions by complementarians. For instance, it is not warranted, as Schreiner repeatedly does, to claim that 1 Tim 2:12’s prohibition is broader than confirmed contemporary usage of its vocabulary warrants (αὐθεντεῖν “to assume authority without proper authorization,” see MW 361–97 and above, p. 15) or that typical use of Paul’s syntax (οὐδέ joining two elements to convey one idea, see MW 337–59) justifies. One must consider whether it is warranted to insist that this particular statement to Timothy is a universal command for all churches at all times.

S 42 “Payne seems too eager to prove his thesis, and as a result he relies on parallels and questionable exegesis.”

Any exegesis that ignores parallels by the same author is irresponsible. As MW 7–29 describes, I began my research on this topic in order to disprove the very position my research caused me to adopt. I started my research by reading 1 Timothy in Greek every day for several months. It was by becoming familiar with the letter as a whole that I realized how extensive the letter’s references to women are and how closely they parallel its description of the false teachers. It was a close examination of the texts that forced me to change my understanding of them. It took me decades of research to come to my present position. Is this too eager?

S 43 “Too often Payne seems too anxious to make his case, which doesn’t inspire confidence in his work elsewhere.”

I waited over 36 years before publishing this book to be sure I got the facts right. Is that “too anxious”? Each of S’s illustrations of this asserts that MW says something it does not say, as the two entries regarding S 43 show above on pp. 19–20.

S 43 “[I]t makes me less confident that he is right when I can’t verify what he [Payne] says.”

“[W]hen I can’t verify what he says” implies that MW provides statements that Schreiner cannot verify. MW provides detailed verifiable documentation for its statements from beginning to end, so Schreiner should be able to verify them. If Schreiner really can’t verify MW’s statements, he is not qualified to write this review. If he means simply that he hasn’t verified what MW says, he should acknowledge this.

6. Forty-one Dubious Assertions by Schreiner

In addition to the above misrepresentations of MW, Schreiner’s review is filled with statements or arguments of dubious validity, including the following forty-one. Regarding each of these, Schreiner should have heeded his own words on p. 42, “We must be careful and discriminate in our scholarship, so that we do not claim to know more than is warranted”:

S 34 “[In] the NT … women served as prophets but never as elders/overseers/pastors.”

This gives the false impression that women in the church are distinguished from men in the church in not being identified in the NT as overseers and pastors. In fact, apart from Christ (Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:4), no overseer (ἐπίσκοπος) of a church or a pastor (ποιμήν) is named in the NT. John calls himself an elder in 2 John 1; 3 John 1, and Peter calls others “fellow-elders” (συνπρεβύτερος), but no other named man is called an “elder” in the NT in the sense of a church administrator. Consequently, it is hardly surprising that no women elders/overseer/pastors are named in the NT. Contrary to the impression given by Schreiner, the title closest to “overseer” or “pastor” given to any named local church in the NT is the title given to Phoebe, [προστάτις, “leader, chief,” “president or presiding officer,” “one who stands before,” LSJ 1526; cf. MW 62–63]. Paul requests in Rom 16:2, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is deacon (διάκονος, not feminine in form, which could imply “servant” or “deaconess,” but masculine in form, hence “deacon”) of the church of Cenchrea, that you receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and give her support in whatever matters [covering all kinds of business and legal affairs, e.g., 1 Thess 4:6] she may have need from you, for she has been a leader of many and of myself as well.” Since Romans was written before any surviving reference to the office of a local church “overseer,” “deacon” may have been the only officially recognized title for a church leader at that time and/or place.

Every meaning of every word in the NT related to the word Paul chose to describe Phoebe as a “leader” (προστάτις) that could apply in Rom 16:2 refers to leadership. This includes the usage shortly before in Rom 12:8, “Let the one in leadership [ὁ προϊστάμενος] govern diligently;” 1 Thess 5:12, “respect those who … who have charge over you [προϊσταμένους] in the Lord;” and 1 Tim 5:17, “The elders who rule [προεστῶτες] well are worthy of a double honor.” Used in relation to the family, it means “ruling one’s household” (1 Tim 3:4, 5, 12).  G. H. R. Horsley, “Sophia, ‘the second Phoibe,’ ” New Documents 4:239–44, 242 identifies citations of προστάτης, including O. Tebt. Pad. 67 and I. Eph. III.668a, to identify the president of an association. Horsley also cites “Sophia, ‘the second Phoibe’” and six other inscriptions or papyri about “female deacons and office-holders” published in 1979 alone. Προστάτις can also, like the Latin patrona (“patroness”), denote the legal representative of strangers and their protector; for as aliens they were deprived of civil rights. Barrett, however, in Romans, 283 argues that meaning does not fit Rom 16:2 since “Phoebe cannot have stood in this relation to Paul since he was born free, Acts 22:28.” Even Charles C. Ryrie, The Role of Women in the Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1958), 140 and 88 who teaches that woman’s role in church is “not a leading one,” acknowledges that προστάτις “includes some kind of leadership.” This term almost always refers to an officially recognized position of authority. See the examples in Leonard Swidler, Biblical Affirmations of Woman (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 310–11; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 888–89; and Philip B. Payne, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Response to Douglas J. Moo’s Article, ‘1 Timothy 2:11–15: Meaning and Significance’,” TJ 2 NS (1981): 169–97, 195.

S 34 “The creation of man before woman signifies the headship of men. Such a reading fits with a canonical reading of the scriptures, for Paul appeals to this very order when he posits a distinction in role between men and women (1 Cor 11:8–9; 1 Tim 2:12–13).”

None of these passages explains that the creation of man before woman signifies male headship or posits a distinction in role between men and women. MW 43–44 shows that this interpretation is not a natural implication of Gen 3; MW 180–81 and 195–98 show this of 1 Cor 11:8–9; and MW 399–405 shows this of 1 Tim 2:12–13. Instead, 1 Cor 11:2–16 affirms the both men and women may pray and prophesy in worship as long as they do no do it in a disgraceful manner. 1 Cor 11:11–12 explains that in Christ woman is not separate from man and 11:12 shows that just as woman should respect man as her source, so man should respect woman as his source. Paul explains woman coming from man as a reason for woman to respect man, not to assert male headship. For women to let their hair down was disrespectful to men (1 Cor 11:2–16), just as for women to teach and (in conjunction with this) to assume authority over a man without proper authorization was disrespectful to men (1 Tim 2:12–13).

S 34 “So too, he recognized the uniqueness and distinctiveness of woman by calling her such, and hence expressed his leadership in the relationship.”

Recognition does not by itself imply leadership. Neither does recognition combined with calling someone something that expresses that recognition imply “leadership in the relationship.” For instance, anyone can recognize uniqueness and distinctiveness of one’s boss and call the boss a name that expresses this, but that done not imply one’s leadership in that relationship.

S 34 “But it seems that God coming to Adam first, even though Eve sinned first, supports the idea that Adam bore primary responsibility for sin.”

Genesis 3 does not draw the conclusion that Adam bore primary responsibility for sin.

As MW 48–49 shows, the order of the questions introduces a chiastic review of the events in reverse that exposes the sin and traces it back to the serpent’s deception. This in turn is followed by a recapitulation of the consequences for the participants in their original order: serpent, woman, man. This literary structure would be broken if the order of the questioning were changed. Furthermore, this order exposes the man’s passing the buck in verse 12 and the woman’s admission that the serpent had deceived her. Since there is a clear literary explanation for the order of the questions, to impose a theological reason for it that the passage does not identify constitutes gratuitous speculation.

S 35 “The elders, not the deacons, have the responsibility for doctrinal purity and leadership of a church.”

The NT nowhere states, “The elders, not the deacons, have the responsibility for doctrinal purity and leadership of a church.” Timothy is identified as “young,” and is distinguished from “the body of elders [πρεσβύτεροι who] laid their hands on you” [1 Tim 4:14]. Timothy is never identified as an “elder” or “overseer.” Yet Paul in writing to Timothy in 1 Tim 4:6 affirms, “If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister [διάκονος, literally “deacon” or “servant,” though probably not the title of a local church office] of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.” [NIV] Clearly, Paul wanted the “διάκονος” Timothy to assume responsibility for doctrinal purity and leadership of a church. Verses 11–13 make it clear that he also taught, “Command and teach these things. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but … devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.” [NIV] Similarly, 1 Cor 14:29 commands prophets to take responsibility for doctrinal purity, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge the validity of what is said.” If heresy is taught, deacons and prophets as well as elders have the responsibility to support doctrinal purity. Schreiner affirms women as prophets, so he should not deny their role in supporting doctrinal purity. Indeed, it is doubtful that any believer should simply be passive and assume that doctrinal purity is only the responsibility of the elders.

S 35 “It is significant that 1 Tim 2:12 prohibits women from teaching and exercising authority over men. Women are excluded are [sic] from the two activities that distinguish elders from deacons (teaching and exercising authority).”

As noted above, pp. 14–15, the first S 44 entry, there is no demonstrated instance of αὐθεντεῖν meaning “to exercise authority” prior to ca. AD 370. Not even Baldwin includes “exercise authority” or “have authority” in “the range of meanings that might be appropriate in 1 Timothy 2:12.” Cf. MW 361–97 and above, p. 15, the second S 44 entry. Furthermore, Paul’s typical use οὐδέ joins two elements to convey one idea, not two. See MW 337–59 and below, the second entry regarding S 43 on p. 38.

S 35 “The play on words between “help” (parastēte) and “helper” (prostatis) assists us in discerning Paul’s meaning.”

This hides the fact that the Greek verb translated as “help [her]” (παραστῆτε from παρίστημι, “I help,” which combines παρά = “along side” + ἵστημι = “I stand”) is almost opposite in meaning to the word describing Phoebe as a προστάτις “one who leads,” which combines πρό = “in rank before” + ἵστημι = “I stand.” Paul’s logic is natural, “Help her in whatever matter she has need, because she is a leader of many, including myself also.” If Paul had intended to say simply that Phoebe had “helped” others, it would have been natural for him to repeat παρίστημι to make his reason parallel his request. The NRSV “for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well” has the disadvantage that this meaning is not listed by LSJ or BAG, and that Paul’s companion Luke uses a different word that LSJ, BDAG, and BAG identify as meaning “benefactor,” “those in authority over them are called benefactors [εὐεργέται]” (Luke 22:25). Thus, the linguistic evidence and the context of Phoebe’s standing in the church strongly favor the normal meaning of the term, προστάτις, namely, “leader.” Since her leadership was in the church it would entail spiritual oversight.

Since Paul includes himself as having been under Phoebe’s leadership, this was not simply a leadership role over other women. It should not be thought strange that Paul, who commanded all Christians to “be subject to one another” (Eph 5:21), should himself be subject to others, at least in certain situations, such as submitting to the local church leadership in the churches he visited, as he does in Acts 21:26.

Consequently, not only could a woman be given a title of a local church leader that is similar to “overseer” and “pastor,” Phoebe, a woman, is the only a local church leader the NT given a title closely analogous to these. Furthermore, she is the only named person given the title “deacon” (διάκονος) of a local church. Paul (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25, Tychichus (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7), Timothy (1 Thess 3:2; 1 Tim 4:6), and Epaphras (Col 1:7) are described as “minister” or “servant” (διάκονος), but not as the title of a local church official. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 461, concludes there is no “argument whatsoever to be derived from Paul’s epistles that it was only the non-official charisma that was extended to the woman [Phoebe] and not regular office.”

S 35 “Paul is scarcely suggesting that she functioned as his leader or as the leader of the church. Paul even declared his independence from the Jerusalem apostles (Gal 1:11–2:14), and so it is impossible to believe that Phoebe was his leader.”

Gal 1:11–2:14 does not, however, state that Paul “declared his independence from the Jerusalem apostles,” and certainly not in the sense that when in Jerusalem he would not submit to their leadership, since he does submit to their leadership in Acts 21:26. In the passage Schreiner cites, Paul affirms that God “was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews” (Gal 2:8). Paul went to the Jerusalem apostles to resolve the dispute over circumcision of the Gentiles (Acts 15:1–35), and he affirms that James, Peter and John “gave me and Barnabas the right had of fellowship” (Gal 2:9). Acts 16:4 confirms, “As they [Paul and Timothy] traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.” Thus, Paul submitted to the leadership of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem and delivered their decisions. It is perfectly natural that he who writes, “I have become all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:22), would submit to local church leadership elsewhere, including Phoebe’s, as long as it did not undermine the truth of the Gospel (e.g. Gal 2:11–21). Acts 16:3 shows the extent to which Paul would accommodate local concerns: “Paul circumcised Timothy “because of the Jews who lived in that area.”

S 35 “Phoebe is commended here as a patroness who probably helped many with her finances.”

As stated above, pp. 27–28 regarding S 34, προστάτις can, like the Latin patrona (“patroness”), denote the legal representative of strangers and their protector; for as aliens they were deprived of civil rights. Barrett, however, in Romans, 283 argues that meaning does not fit Rom 16:2 since “Phoebe cannot have stood in this relation to Paul since he was born free, Acts 22:28.”

S 35 “Paul teaches that prophecy involves the spontaneous reception of oracles from God (1 Cor 14:29–32).”

Nothing in 1 Cor 14:29–32 states that prophecy must be “spontaneous reception of oracles from God.” 1 Cor 14:31 states, instead, “For you can all prophecy in turn so that everyone may learn and be encouraged.” “In turn” implies order and “learn” is a natural pair with “teach.” “Be encouraged” has broad reference. 1 Cor 14:32 “The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets” would be an odd statement if prophecy had to be “spontaneous.” Furthermore, part of the prophet’s work was to “assess the validity” (1 Cor 14:29) of other prophesies. This does not sound spontaneous. 1 Cor 14:1, 5, and 39 stress the central importance of prophecy for worship and describe it as “for strengthening, comfort, and encouragement” (14:3, 26, 31), “edifies the church” (14:4, 5), “convicts of sin” (14:24), and leads to “learning” (14:31). Schreiner’s restrictive definition of prophecy does not fit Paul’s description of its importance and purposes.

S 35 “Teaching involves the explanation of tradition, whereas prophecy is new revelation.” The italics stressing new are Schreiner’s.

Some prophecies are new, but Paul does not teach that prophecy must be new or cannot involve “explanation of tradition.” Against Schreiner’s definition of prophecy as “new revelation” is its broad range of purposes cited in the previous entry and its centrality for worship.

S 36 “Furthermore, it is clear that “head” means “authority over” in Eph 5:23, for the wife is to “submit” to her husband as the head (Eph 5:24). The call to submission fits perfectly with the idea that husbands are the authority over their wives.”

It makes just as good, if not better, sense for a wife to submit to her husband since he sustains her life and nourishes her both physically and spiritually, and this has the advantage that this is how Paul explains his use of “head” here by apposition, “as Christ is head of the church, he the savior of the body.”

S 36 “kephalē may denote source in some texts (Eph 4:15; Col 2:19), but even in these instances, in accord with Hebrew thought, the one who is the source is also the authority.”

Schreiner does not cite a single instance in the Hebrew Scriptures where the context identifies a word meaning “source” or “origin” to entail the idea of “authority.” HALOT 2:579 identifies the Hebrew word for “origin” as hr:Wkm]. Ezek 16:3 states, “Your origin and your birth are from the land of the Canaanite, your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite” (NASB). This does not imply that an Amorite or a Hittite is the authority over Jerusalem or its people, nor does this word imply authority in any of its other occurrences in the Hebrew Scriptures. Nor does the Hebrew word for origin in reference to someone’s descendents in Esth 6:13 referring to Mordecai being “of Jewish origin” (NASB, NIV [r"Z<mi) imply a relationship of authority. Similarly, the “descendent of the woman” who will crush the head of the serpent (Gen 3:15), Christ, is not under the authority of Eve. None of the occurrences of “source” or “origin” in the NASB OT entails the idea of authority. All of this undermines Schreiner’s allegation. Only the context can show whether source implies authority, and MW 109–215 argues that the only reference to authority in 1 Cor 11:2–16 is the affirmation of the woman’s authority in 11:10, reinforced by the affirmations of the equal standing of women and men in the Lord in 11:11–12, all in the context of a passage affirming prophecy and prayer by both men and women. In any event, if Paul in writing to a Greek speaking church intends to use κεφαλή in 1 Cor 11:3 with the standard Greek meaning, “source,” it does not make sense that he would expect it also to convey a Hebrew meaning, especially since “source” is not a Hebrew meaning for “head” (varo), at least not as listed in HALOT, KB or BDB.

S 37 “[Women] must adorn themselves and speak and pray in such a way that they do not violate male headship.”

MW 109–215 argues that the idea of “male headship” is absent from this passage. To the contrary, 1 Cor 11:10 explicitly states that a woman ought to have authority over her head, and 1 Cor 11:11–12 directly affirms the equal standing of woman and man in the Lord.

S 39 “It should be noted, incidentally, that even if these verses are judged to be secondary, the complementarian case would still stand on the basis of many other texts.”

If this verse is an interpolation, there is only one other verse in the Bible that might prohibit women from teaching or having authority over a man, 1 Tim 2:12. As MW 319–415 shows, however, careful analysis of all instances of the verb normally meaning “to assume authority without proper authorization” near the time of Paul combined with Paul’s typical use of the conjunction he chose to link it with “to teach” argues that Paul restricts only the unauthorized assumption of authority to teach a man. Complementarians have not to my knowledge identified any other passage of Scripture that explicitly limits the ministry of women in the church.

S 39 “Kloha argues that the “bars” point to the evidence of a new paragraph, not an interpolation.”

MW 237 explicitly affirms the use of bars to mark paragraph breaks. The bar that occurs between 1 Cor 14:34–35, however, is significantly longer than most paragraph breaks and is conjoined with a distigme. MW 237–40 points out that virtually all such long bars just below distigmai occur at exactly the location of a widely-recognized, lengthy interpolation. They extend noticeably farther into the margin (and hence closer to the adjacent distigme) than typical paragraphoi, arguably to associate them with the adjacent distigme. Photographs showing the contrast between paragraphoi and distigme-obelus symbols marking the locations of extended interpolations are at http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=303. These give strong evidence that these long bars, including the one at the end of 1 Cor 14:33 do mark an interpolation.

S 39 “According to Kloha, the umlaut points to a textual variant, but what is most likely is that the scribe was signaling that didaskō followed hagiōn.”

The NA27 and UBS4 do not even list this variant, and as far as I have found, it occurs only in Western manuscripts that also have vv. 34–35 after v. 40. If the Western text were being compared, by far the most obvious textual variant would be the transposition of verses 34–35 to follow v. 40. It is virtually impossible that the scribe noting the location of textual variants would notice this single word variant but not that two full verses (36 words in the NA 27) are missing at this point in the same manuscript and occur instead after v. 40. The reason it is unlikely that the distigme-obelus here marks the Western transposition is that there is no corresponding distigme after v. 40, as there should be to mark the identical change in the text there, if that were the variant being noted.

S 40 Schreiner quotes Kloha, “He added a superscript double slash at the beginning of v. 36,”

Kloha, as cited by Schreiner, is mistaken. MS 88 has a superscript double slash over the last letter of v. 33, not at the beginning of v. 36.

S 40 “He then continued writing until the end of v. 40, where he placed a double slash both in the text and in the margin.”

Kloha, as cited by Schreiner, is mistaken. There is no double slash in the margin next to the end of v. 40. In addition, the double slash is on the baseline before the period at the end of v. 40, not after the end of v. 40. See the photograph of MS 88 in Philip B. Payne, “Ms. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor 14.34–35” NTS 44 (1998): 152–58, 158.

S 40 Schreiner quotes Kloha, “This is precisely what stood in his exemplar, now known through 915.”

This is conjecture and should not be stated as though it were an established fact. We do not know what caused MS 915 to read as it does here. It could have been any Western MS, and we do not know that the 12th century MS 88 and the 13th century MS 915 were copied from the same exemplar.

S 40 “First, the so-called contradiction with 1 Cor 11:5 can be resolved, for in 1 Cor 14:34–35 women are exhorted to quit interrupting the congregation with questions that contend with male leadership. Women are not prohibited from all speaking, but from the kind of speaking that undermines male leadership.”

Nothing in 1 Cor 14:34–35 mentions “interrupting the congregation with questions that contend with male leadership … [or] speaking that undermines male leadership.” To the contrary, it reiterates three times the unqualified prohibition of women speaking in church: “Let women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak … For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” Delling (TDNT 4:216) explains that in the Greek and Hellenistic Roman world, “threefold utterance of a word, expression, or sentence gives it full validity and power … three is characterized by fullness and solidity.” Consequently, the threefold repetition calling for the silence of women without qualification in 1 Cor 14:34–35 is most naturally read as giving its unqualified statements full validity and power, namely, that in the churches women must not speak, period. As MW 222–23 shows, contrary to Schreiner’s thesis, verses 30–33, must not elaborate 14:29a, since verse 31’s “all may prophesy” contradicts verse 29a’s limitation to two or three prophets speaking. This implies, instead, that verses 30–32 introduce something other than what verse 29 addresses. Furthermore, the four words about judging prophecies are not only too far from 14:34–35 for this association to be apparent, they are in separate paragraphs since verse 33 concludes the preceding section. Furthermore, if Paul had intended these verses to apply only to “questions that contend with male leadership” the example he gives illustrating its application should have been about “questions that contend with male leadership.” It is not. Instead, the example provided by verse 35 specifically states, “if any wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.” This is a perfect example, however, to a potential objection to the obvious meaning of Paul’s thrice-repeated unqualified prohibition, namely that if women can’t speak in church, how can they learn when they have questions? Verse 35 answers this directly. Consequently, it is Schreiner’s view that is “quite subjective and should be rejected as special pleading,” not the objectively argued interpretation of MW.

S 40 “Paul was careful in 1 Cor 11:2–16 to support women speaking when it was done in a way that was submissive to male leadership.”

There is nothing in 1 Cor 11:2–16 that even mentions male leadership or submission by women to it. This is, rather, as MW 141–73 argues, a passage about hairstyles that repudiate marriage and cause shame.

S 40 Schreiner writes that it “is by no means clear” that verses 34–35 of 1 Cor 14 “interrupt Paul’s argument.”

Schreiner himself writes on p. 39 as his explanation for the Western text transposition of these verses to follow v. 40, “by moving the verses scribes would keep the verses on prophecy together (vv. 29–33 and vv. 36–38).” He thereby acknowledges that vv. 34–35 interrupt Paul’s argument about prophecy. Everything in 1 Cor 14:27–33 and 36–39 is about prophecy and tongues. Verses 34–35, however, are not about prophecy or tongues. They are a thrice-repeated demand that women be silent in the churches, even prohibiting women from asking questions out of a desire to learn.

S 40 “Paul appeals to the teaching of the law in general as well (Gal 4:21).”

This is apparently intended to rebut MW 258, “In all other instances when Paul appeals to the law, the passage cited is clearly recognizable as an OT passage.” The appeal to the law in Gal 4:21 is to a passage Paul specifically identifies, “are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.” Paul goes on to elaborate specifically about that passage in Gal 4:21–31. Gal 4:21a addresses “you who want to be under the law,” but this general use of “law” is unlike 1 Cor 14:34, for it does not make an appeal to a commandment or other saying in the law. The one example S cites to repudiate MW’s statement, does not repudiate MW’s statement. S has provided no example anywhere in Paul’s letters that appeals to a commandment or saying of the law for which no corresponding commandment or saying has ever been identified in the OT. MW 261’s statement stands unrefuted: “This theological tension between 14:34–35 and Paul’s teaching about freedom from the law, along with the absence of appeals to a precept of the law to establish rules for Christian worship elsewhere in Paul’s letters, and the absence of any OT statement that matches what 14:34 commands, are irrefutable evidence that 1 Cor 14:34 is out of harmony with what Paul teaches about the law and how he expresses it elsewhere.”

S 40 “The text fits with what Paul teaches elsewhere. Women should be submissive to male leadership and should not speak in the assembly in such a way that male leadership is subverted.”

Paul nowhere else commands women to be silence (σιγάτωσαν) or says they should not speak. The “quietness” (ἡσυχίᾳ) 1 Tim 2:12 calls for is different. 1 Cor 14:34–35 does not mention “to male leadership.” Furthermore, no other passage in the Bible commands the silence of women.  Nor does any other passage in the Bible state that women “should not speak in the assembly in such a way that male leadership is subverted.” To the contrary, since Paul specifically regulates the demeanor of women prophets in 1 Cor 11:2–16, it is natural to include women in the “other” prophets Paul commands to judge the validity of prophecies in 1 Cor 14:29. This command could require women prophets to question statements of male leaders.

S 41 “it is quite unclear that Paul demanded Philemon to free Onesimus.… It seems that Payne has a tendency to accept too easily readings that are palatable to our culture.”

It is Schreiner’s “reading” that conflicts with the natural reading of Phmn 6, “no longer as a slave,” as “Paul Applies Maximum Social Pressure for Philemon to Free Onesimus,” at http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-admin/Onesimus_no_longer_as_a_slave.pdf shows. A specific command to free a particular slave is not incompatible with Paul exhorting slaves to serve their masters. In practice, serving well provided the best chance of freedom. One does not have to incite revolution to promote change. The absence of a general command in Paul’s surviving letters to all masters to free their slaves does not mean that Paul did not undermine slavery in other ways. For examples of things Paul wrote that undermine slavery, see MW 90–92 on “slave and free” in Gal 3:18 and “Twelve Reasons to Understand 1 Corinthians 7:21–23 as a Call to Gain Freedom,” at http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-admin/1_Cor_7-21_escape_slavery.pdf.

S 41 “I agree with Payne that “one another” (allēlois) does not designate the submission of some to others, but it does not follow from this that mutual submission is enjoined for husbands and wives. Verse 21 specifies the need to submit to one another as fellow believers in the body of Christ. Such a calling does not yield the conclusion that husbands should submit to wives.”

I am pleased that Schreiner agrees with MW against Grudem’s claim “that “one another” (allēlois) does not designate the submission of some to others …[and that verse] 21 specifies the need to submit to one another as fellow believers in the body of Christ.” I do not, however, agree that one should deny its application to the most intimate of all relations in the body of Christ, namely that between husbands and wives. Syntactically, Paul’s statement is so closely attached to this relationship that the verb from “submitting to one another” is assumed and not repeated in “wives to your husbands.” Consequently, “wives to your husbands” is grammatically dependent on “submitting to one another.” Furthermore, Paul’s paired command to husbands in v. 25 “love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” entails subordinating his interests even to the point of death for his wife. If this is not mutual submission, what is? Even the complementarians George W. Knight III and James Bassett Hurley agree that this sentence links the submission of wives to husbands in verse 22 to the principle of mutual submission, giving one instance of it (see above, p. 12 regarding S 35).

S 41 “He makes the mistake of thinking that the word in apposition (‘Savior’) demonstrates that the word ‘head’ means source. But it also makes perfect sense to say that one’s ‘Lord’ is one’s Savior. Other grounds are needed to determine the definition of the word ‘head.’”

Apposition by definition is “the placing of a word or expression beside another so that the second explains and has the same grammatical construction as the first” (Webster’s New World Dictionary [NY: Prentice Hall, 1991] 67). LSJ lists forty-eight English metaphorical equivalents for κεφαλή (“head”), so it makes sense that Paul would define the sense he intends by apposition. The word Paul chose to explain “head” in Eph 5:23 was not “lord” or any other word that would suggest a hierarchy of authority. Of course, Christ is Lord, but Christ repeatedly speaks against those who “lord it over you” and argues that this should not be the model among believers and argues instead for servant leadership. We should respect Paul’s explanation of what he means by “head” in this context, namely “savior,” which he goes on to explain as the source of life and nourishment of the church by saying that he “gave himself up for her” (v. 25), as husbands should do for their wives (v. 26) and to be a source of nourishment for them (v. 29). This image of Christ as “head/savior” of his “body,” modeling how husbands should be “head” to their wives is not a dead metaphor with a pre-established meaning, but is an original living metaphor that Paul explained to highlight the aspect of this metaphor he was emphasizing. Cf. MW 283–90.

S 41 “Wives should ‘submit’ to their husbands because husbands are their authority, just as Christ is the authority over the church (Eph 5:22–24).”

Paul does not use the word for “authority” (ἐξουσία) in this passage. It is a circular argument to assume that “head” means authority and on this basis conclude that because the argument of the text is about authority, therefore “head” must mean authority. The assumption is unwarranted since Paul explains using apposition that by “head” he means “savior,” not “authority.” Furthermore, the meaning Paul explains by apposition, Christ’s and a husband’s loving nourishment, is a more compelling argument for submission than authority.

S 42 “The women speaking what is not fitting (1 Tim 5:13) … does not indicate that they were teaching heresy. … In the same way a mere reference to Satan does not prove that the women were actually promoting the false teaching.”

Speaking “what they ought not (τὰ μὴ δέοντα)” is stronger than merely “speaking what is not fitting.” It points to content that is wrong to speak and must be silenced. The parallel in Titus 1:11 states, “they must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not (ἃ μὴ δεῖ) to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain” (NIV). If someone wrote that I had “already strayed after Satan,” I would not regard this “a mere reference to Satan”! Is it common to say this of someone who is doing no more than gossiping? It is the combination of these descriptions together in the same context that together does indicate something serious, RSV:  “11 grow wanton against Christ … 12 incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge … v. 13 going from house to house [house church to house church?] saying what they should not … 14 give the enemy no occasion to revile us. 15 For some have already strayed after Satan.” Cf. the parallel description of the false teachers and of women in MW 299–304.

S 43 “Since Paul grounds the exhortation in v. 12 in creation (v. 13), the injunction for women not to teach or exercise authority over a man cannot be limited to a specific situation.”

This statement presupposes that the γάρ is illative (giving the reason for something) and that the reason it identifies has to do with immutable characteristics of the creation order. Neither is required by the text. In 1 Cor 11:3, 8–9, and 12 Paul uses parallel appeals to the sequence of the creation of man before woman to call for respect to one’s source instead of shaming one’s source. He does not use them to establish a hierarchy of authority. To the contrary, Paul specifically concludes in a way that highlights his central concern, that “woman is not separate from woman, nor is man separate from woman in the Lord, for just as the woman came out of the man, so also man comes through woman, and all this is from God” (1 Cor 11:11–12). Verse 12 shows that the respect owed to one’s source should cause men to respect women, just as it should cause women to respect men. The egalitarian statements of verses 11–12 fit perfectly with respect for one’s source but are at odds with a hierarchical interpretation. Paul’s appeal to sequence in creation in Corinth as a reason for women to respect men supports the view that Paul uses sequence in creation as a reason for women in Ephesus to respect men by not independently assuming authority to teach men.

S 43 “Contrary to Payne, teaching in the Pastoral Epistles is the public transmission of authoritative material (cf. 1 Tim 4:13, 16; 6:2; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 2:7). The elders especially are to labor in teaching (1 Tim 5:17), so that they are able to refute false teachers who promulgate heresy (1 Tim 1:3, 10; 4:1; 6:3; 2 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:9, 11).”

If “teaching in the Pastoral Epistles” is limited to “the public transmission of authoritative material,” why do all the examples Schreiner identifies as referring to those “false teachers who promulgate heresy (1 Tim 1:3, 10; 4:1; 6:3; 2 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:9, 11)” describe their actions as “teaching”? Surely their “teaching” is not “public transmission of authoritative material.” Consequently, it is incorrect to regard the word “teaching” in the Pastoral Epistles as by definition identifying “public transmission of authoritative material.” For instance Titus 1:11 states, “They must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families by teaching (διδάσκοντες) for base gain what they ought not (ἂ μὴ δεῖ).” This parallels the description in 1 Tim 5:13 of women who were “saying what they ought not (τὰ μὴ δέοντα).” Ironically, Schreiner’s restrictive definition of “teaching” to apply only to “public transmission of authoritative material” would mean that 1 Tim 2:12 is only prohibiting women from “the public transmission of authoritative material.” It would not prohibit women from the public transmission of false material since only “teaching” in his narrow sense is prohibited! It is precisely because MW argues from context that Paul is prohibiting the combination of “to teach” and “to assume authority over a man” that it depicts the teaching that is prohibited to be public teaching where at least one man is present. Furthermore, according to Schreiner’s definition of “teach” in the Pastorals, Paul calls older widows in Titus 2:3 to give “public transmission of authoritative material.”

S 43 alleges, “public and regular instruction [by women] is prohibited,”

Surely both 1 Cor 14:26 and Col 3:16 refer to what Paul regards as normal and regular practice in public worship. S 43 acknowledges that these verses permit women to “share informal instructions from the word in the assembly,” but both use the word “teaching that S 43 says, “in the Pastoral Epistles is the public transmission of authoritative material.” In 1 Cor 14:26 Paul writes, “when you come together each has a teaching” (διδαχή) and in Col 3:16 he commands the saints at Colossae to “teach (διδάσκω) one another in all wisdom.” Both refer to public and apparently regular instruction (at least this is Paul’s desire and command), and Schreiner acknowledges that both apply to women. Yet he does not acknowledge the tension between this and his statement, “But public and regular instruction [by women] is prohibited,” Schreiner clings to his anachronistic reading of 1 Tim 2:12 as though it prohibits women “to exercise authority,” a meaning of αὐθεντέω first clearly documented 300 years after Paul and for which neither Schreiner nor Baldwin has provided an earlier clear instance. Although he does not challenge that Paul’s most common use of οὐδέ is to join two elements to convey a single idea, he rejects the natural application of it to 1 Tim 2:12 in spite of all the evidence MW 337–59 documents.

S 43 “Köstenberger has now responded to Payne, demonstrating that his analysis of the evidence is unpersuasive.”

Professor Köstenberger’s rejoinder is defective at three crucial points. First, Köstenberger misrepresents my NTS “οὐδέ” article sixteen times. The editor of the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has confirmed he will publish the identification of these sixteen misrepresentations. A detailed critique of Köstenberger’s review will be posted at www.pbpayne.com. Second, his analysis of the primary data fails to reveal many crucial factors that undermine his thesis. Third, and most importantly, he does not address the significance that when an οὐδέ construction conveys a single idea, then its author views both together as conveying that idea. Consequently, even if he were correct that the author views both items in οὐδέ construction either positively or negatively, it would still not undermine MW’s interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12. What Paul prohibits he must view negatively. He prohibits women from the combination of teaching and assuming authority over a man in 1 Tim 2:12. Consequently, he must view the combination of a woman teaching and assuming authority over a man negatively in this context.

S 44 “Women are prohibited from teaching and exercising authority because such actions violate male headship.”

As MW 319–97 argues, a more natural reading is that Paul prohibits women in Ephesus only from teaching that is combined with unauthorized assumption of authority over men. Furthermore, as MW 399–415 argues, a more natural reading is that the two reasons Paul gives for this single prohibition are 1) woman should show respect to man, as the source from which woman was formed, and 2) just as Eve was deceived, leading to the fall, women in Ephesus had been deceived by false teachers and so should not teach but rather learn in submission to true doctrine. See also the following entry.

S 44 “It seems that the logic of the verse is not hard to understand. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men because of the created order. The Lord created man first to signify male headship in the church.”

One must first understand the prohibition before explaining the reasoning behind it. Paul’s readers read the prohibition in v. 12 before the following explanation. If the prohibited action is disrespectful, as MW argues it is from the early pattern of use of αὐθεντέω, namely assuming to oneself authority that had not been authorized, then a reason for it expressing the need to show respect to the men over whom they were assuming authority makes perfect sense. This understanding also fits Paul’s parallel appeal to man created before woman in 1 Cor 11:3, 8, 12. Schreiner uses the expressions “created order” and “male headship” not because they are in the text; neither is. He uses them because it evokes an authority structure that is not conveyed simply by temporal sequence. Schreiner exposes the weakness of his interpretation by his qualification, “in the church.” If the “created order” established “male headship,” why restrict this to the church, which is not even mentioned in the creation narrative?

S 44 It is ironic in light of Schreiner’s many assertions about Scripture cited above that are not in its actual text, that he asserts, “The rock on which all egalitarian interpretations stumble is the wording of the biblical text.”

I began my research in order to disprove the very egalitarian understanding of this verse that Schreiner attacks, but it is precisely the wording of the biblical text that forced me to abandon his view that “the complementarian reading is the most natural and plausible interpretation.”

S 45 “The verse does not suggest that women were disseminating false teaching.”

Yet Schreiner himself wrote, “it is likely that the prohibition [1 Tim 2:12] is given because some women were teaching men” in “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” WCFA, 141. In the second edition, WCA 112, he changed this to “it is certainly possible that the prohibition was given because some women were teaching men.” Schreiner’s new assertion ignores both the content and the context of this verse. Paul typically prohibits things that have become a problem, namely things that have been done but should not be done. In this context, “I am not permitting a woman to teach and in conjunction with this to assume authority over a man without proper authorization” at least “suggests” that some women were doing this in Ephesus. Furthermore, the reasoning for this prohibition, “for Eve was deceived,” implies a parallel between what is being prohibited and what Eve did. The Serpent deceived Eve (Gen 3:13) and she conveyed a message verbally to her husband that led him into disobedience, as Gen 3:17 demonstrates, “because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree.” Paul’s argument from Eve’s deception proves that he was concerned enough about this happening in Ephesus that he prohibits a woman to teach and in conjunction with this to assume authority over a man without proper authorization. In the context of the letter, this suggests that some women were disseminating false teaching. In a letter focused throughout on false teaching, if women were not involved in disseminating false teaching, why would Paul restrict their assuming authority to teach men, and why would he base this on the example of Eve’s deception leading to the fall?

S 45 “More likely, Paul promises women that they will be saved if they fulfill their role as women and continue in the faith.”

This sounds like Schreiner is proposing a different requirement for salvation for women than men. This would be contrary to Gal 3:28 and 1 Cor 11:11 and all Paul’s teachings that salvation comes only through Christ.

S 45 “Paul does not teach that women must be married or have children to be saved on the last day (cf. 1 Corinthians 7).”

While this is certainly true, how is this compatible with Schreiner’s interpretation that “saved through” in 1 Tim 2:12 teaches that women “will be saved if they fulfill their role as women”? What in the text indicates that “bearing children” is optional? Alternatively, what in the text justifies interpreting the Greek words meaning “saved through the Childbirth” as “saved through fulfilling their role as women”? Schreiner (“Dialogue,” WCA 117) correctly identifies “through” (διά) as instrumental but inconsistently explains in WCA 120 that “conforming to her God-ordained role [is] … necessary to obtain eschatological salvation.” This latter statement seems to imply that S views the διά not as instrumental, but as signaling necessary accompaniment. Although MW 425–26 points out this inconsistency, Schreiner continues to make these conflicting assertions even though he has correctly affirmed in “Dialogue,” WCA 115 with extensive bibliography: “σώζω always has the meaning of spiritual salvation in the Pastoral Epistles … and the other Pauline writings.”

S 45 “He selects bearing children because it represents in a concrete way that women are embracing their role as women.”

Schreiner’s view still leaves Paul affirming that women are saved through “embracing their role as women.” This is contrary to many of Paul’s other statements about salvation only being through Christ.

Furthermore, Schreiner’s interpretation of “the Childbirth” as the far broader category, “embracing their role as women” could be subject to the same criticism Schreiner in “Dialogue,” WCA 117 and n. 241 levels against Moo’s view that sees “in the word τεκνογονία the idea of rearing children.” Schreiner’s view also seems inconsistent with his own reasonable assertion regarding 1 Tim 3:15, “Neither is it persuasive to see διά referring to attendant circumstances” (Schreiner, “Dialogue,” WCA 117).

In light of the above-documented eighty-one misrepresentations of MW and forty-one dubious assertions, how does one assess S 45’s judgment that MW as “another drizzly day in Portland, Oregon”? One way is to contrast it with the many other assessments listed at http://www.pbpayne.com/?page_id=255, including those by:

Scot McKnight, “the most technically proficient study ever published on women in the Pauline texts,” 

Ron Pierce, “The most comprehensive and well-reasoned contribution by an individual evangelical scholar in the modern history of the debate.” 

Ben Witherington III, “meticulous research … thoroughly biblical… deserves the highest commendation,”

Eldon J. Epp, “meticulously formulated, cogently argued, and of lasting significance.”

The best way, however, is to read Man and Woman, One in Christ and decide for yourself if Schreiner’s evaluation or this critique is fair. Only then will you know if MW proves to be for you what it was for David R. Booth, a long-time adherent to CBMW’s Danvers Statement, “a fruitful and stimulating paradigm-changing challenge.”

Endnotes:

¹ Personally, I find both the rainy and sunny days in the Great Northwest to be incredibly invigorating. They explain why this region has densest biomass of any region in the world, even more than the Amazon. I am glad I chose to live in the Seattle area.

² Thomas Schreiner’s publications include, “Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: I Corinthians 11:2–16,” pages 124–39 and “The Valuable Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership: A Survey of Old and New Testament Examples and Teaching,” pages 209–24 in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1991 [hereafter RBMW]; “Women in Ministry,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry (ed. James R. Beck and Craig L. Blomberg; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) 173–232 [hereafter “Women in Ministry”]; “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” pages 105–54 in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995 [hereafter WCFA], and pages 85–120 in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005 [hereafter WCA].

A PDF version of this post is available here.

The key insight of this discussion is that Paul gives the proper answer to the question of 1 Cor 11:13, “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered?”  in verses 14-15, “Does not the very nature of things teach you that it is degrading for a man to wear long hair, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, for her hair is given to her as a covering.” By conjoining these questions, Paul associates “uncovered” with hair and explicitly states that “hair is given to her as a covering.” Consequently, Paul here defines hair as a woman’s covering and explains that if she wears it “as a wraparound,” it is her glory. Since verses 14-15 identify long hair as degrading to a man but the glory of a woman, they also answer the question raised by 11:4 regarding men’s head covering: “What ‘hanging down from a man’s head’ is disgraceful?” Long effeminate hair is disgraceful.

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010, Susanna Krizo wrote:

Hi, I have a question about 1 Cor 11. If “covered” means long hair tied up and “uncovered” means long hair hanging down loosely, does it not mean that men should not tie up their long hair but let it flow down loosely since v. 7 says a man should not cover his head? This of course contradicts with v. 14-15 which says it is a dishonor for a man to have long hair to begin with. Unless the words “covered” and “uncovered” mean different things when referring to men and women (which is how CBMW does theology) I cannot see how this contradiction can be avoided.

I replied:

Thank you for your questions.

We must try to understand the text of 1 Cor 11:2-16 within the light of what it’s Greek text actually states and what we know of the culture it addresses.

In order for a man to display effeminate hair, he had to have long hair or a wig. Typically, however, men “in drag” would do up their hair in ways that women did up their hair. Based on examination of hundreds of sculptures of women’s heads with Professor E. A. Judge of Macquarie University while he was in Cambridge, I can say with complete confidence that Hellenistic women are almost invariably depicted with hair done up. The few exceptions I recall were depictions of the Maenads, the sexually wild women participating in Dionysiac frenzies.

Consequently, for a man to wear his hair like a woman, typically required long hair and entailed doing that hair up like a woman would. When Paul identifies long hair itself he uses expressions specifically referring to long hair (KOMA), as in verses 14 and 15. but when he has hair styles specifically in view he uses words indicating the use of hair as a “covering.” Verse 15 combines these two, “[Does note even nature teach you that] if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” This why verse 6 says, “Let her be covered.” She already had long hair, she just needed to put it up.

Juvenal’s Satire II (A.D. 116) 93-96 describes this same combination of long hair and doing it up regarding men. He depicts “secret torchlight orgies” for “none but males: One prolongs his eyebrows… another drinks out of an obscenely shaped glass, and ties up his long locks in a gilded net.” G. G. Ramsay, trans., Juvenal and Persius (LCL, 1979) 25.

You ask, “If “covered” means long hair tied up and “uncovered” means long hair hanging down loosely, does it not mean that men should not tie up their long hair but let it flow down loosely since v. 7 says a man should not cover his head?”

According to Paul’s instructions, men should not tie up their long hair [if they have long hair]. Paul does not, however, say that men should  let [their long hair] flow down loosely, but rather that “long hair is degrading to a man” in 1 Cor 11:14. Indeed, he says, ”every man who prays or prophesies ‘having down from the head’ [which most naturally refers to long hair] disgraces his head” in 11:4.

You are correct that encouraging men to wear long hair let down would contradict verse 14, for its teaches that ”it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair.”

You state, “Unless the words ‘covered’ and ‘uncovered’ mean different things when referring to men and women (which is how CBMW does theology) I cannot see how this contradiction can be avoided.”

There is no contradiction to be avoided since Paul never never says that men should be “uncovered” meaning with long hair let down. He states only:

11:3 It is a disgrace for men to have “down from the head,” namely to have long hair. This expression probably means “hanging down from the head,” but it is theoretically possible that it means “having on the head.” Cf. Man and Woman, One in Christ, page 141, note 3.

11:7 “A man ought not to cover his head.” NB: this does not state that a man should let down long hair. The following reasons given for this emphasize the differentiation of the sexes, which points to Paul’s concern regarding men displaying effeminate hair, namely depicting themselves as women.

11:14 “Does not even the nature of things teach you that it is degrading for a man to have long hair?”

The bottom line is that Paul does use “cover” consistently to refer to doing up hair over one’s head, whether by men or women. In the case of men, Paul prohibits effeminate hair in 11:7 because it symbolized rejection of the sexual differentiation God created and undermines marriage. In the case of women, Paul prohibits the opposite, letting hair down, since it symbolized sexual freedom and the repudiation of marital vows and sexual fidelity within marriage.

1 Cor 11:3 states, “Any man who prays or prophesies ‘having down from his head’ disgraces his head.” What head covering would have been disgraceful for men in Corinth, a Greek city and a Roman colony? The pulling of a toga over ones head in Roman religious contexts was a sign of piety, not disgrace. Jewish priests wore turbans in obedience to the Law with no disgrace. There is, however, abundant evidence in the Greek, Roman and Jewish literature of Paul’s day that it was disgraceful for men to wear long effeminate hair, whether hanging down or done up like a woman’s hair. Long hair fits Paul’s expression in v. 4, literally “hanging down from the head,” and Paul confirms in v. 10, “if a man has long hair, it is degrading to him.”

The extent of moral indignation over effeminate hairstyles by men is abundantly documented with over 100 references to effeminate hair in classical antiquity cited by Herter, the greatest number of these coming from around Paul’s time. These are listed in H. Herter, “Effeminatus,” RAC 2, 620-650.

The following citations give a good feel for the shame associated with men wearing long hair: Pseudo-Phocylides (30 B.C. – A.D. 40) 210-14 advised, “Long hair is not fit for men.” P. W. van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides with Introduction and Commentary, SVTP 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1978) 81-83.

Philo’s The Special Laws (A.D. 39) III.37-42 states, “A much graver… evil… has ramped its way into the cities, … the disease of effemination. … Mark how conspicuously they braid and adorn the hair of their heads. … [The Law] ordains that the man-woman who debases the sterling coin of nature should perish. … [These are] grievous vices of unmanliness and effeminacy… licentiousness and effeminacy.” F. H. Colson, trans., Philo, 10 vols. (LCL, 1988) 7:498-501. See, similarly, Philo’s The Special Laws I.325, The Contemplative Life, 59-62 and On Abraham 133-136.

The Stoic Musonius Rufus (A.D. 66) called hair “a covering by nature” and objected to men “cutting the hair… to appear as women and to be seen as womanish, something that should be avoided at all cost.” Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” CBQ 42 (1980) 487.

Josephus’s The Jewish War (A.D. 70) 4, 561-63 states, “[They] unscrupulously indulged in effeminate practices, plaiting their hair.” H. St. J. Thackeray, trans., Josephus, 9 vols. (LCL, 1979) 3:166-167.

Plutarch’s Moralia (A.D. 80) 785E calls a man having “his hair curled” disgraceful. Harold North Fowler, trans., Plutarch’s Moralia Volume X (LCL, 1969) 10:90-91.

The whole first chapter of Book III of Arrian’s Discourses of Epictetus describes Epictetus (A.D. 90) rebuking a young student from Corinth with effeminately-dressed hair as “a dreadful spectacle… against your nature… half-man and half-woman… Dress your locks… God forbid!” W. A. Oldfather, trans., Epictetus: The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, The Manual, and Fragments, 2 vols. (LCL, 1966) 2:15-21.

Dio Chrysostom (A.D.100) 33, 52 states, “in violation of nature’s laws… the wretched culprits commit their heinous deeds all unobserved; yet… style of haircut… reveal[s] their true character….”  35, 11 states, “long hair must not by any means be taken as a mark of virtue.” Cohoon and Crosby, Dio Chrysostom, 3:401.

These and many other such references near the time of Paul show that long effeminate hair on men was considered degrading, disgraceful, and contrary to the norms of Greek, Roman and Jewish culture. E.g. Arrian’s Discourses of Epictetus 3.22.10-11; Josephus, Antiquities 19,30; Cicero, In Catilinam 2,22-23; Dionysius of Halicarnassus 7,9,4; Strabo, Geography 10.3.8; Horace, Epodes 11:28; Seneca, Epistles 95,24; Seneca, Oedipus 416-421; Plutarch, Moralia 261F; Lucian, Affairs of the Heart 3; Pausanias, Description of Greece 1.19.1; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae xii.524f-525a; Diogenes Laertius 8,47.

The most common word to describe long effeminate hair is the very word Paul used in v. 14, “degrading” (ATIMIA). The major reason long hair was degrading for men was its association with effeminate homosexuality. There are many examples of young men with long hair engaged in homosexual acts depicted on Grecian pottery. Since the evidence is overwhelming that Greek and Roman men in Paul’s day typically wore short hair, long hair stood out in its association with effeminate homosexuality.

Paul introduces men’s shameful covering in verse 4: “Every man who prays or prophesies [literally:] ‘having down from his head’ disgraces his head.” The preposition KATA with a genitive of place means “down from” (LSJ 882 A.I, Bauer Danker Arndt Gingrich [BDAG] 511 A.1.a, lit. “hanging down fr. the head”). It was not shameful in Greek, Roman, or Jewish culture for a man to drape a garment over his head. This capite velato custom symbolized religious devotion and piety. The Hebrew Scriptures and later Jewish custom approved head-covering garments for men in worship. Consequently, to prohibit them would have complicated Paul’s relationships with synagogues. It also would have contradicted Paul’s principle of becoming all things to all people, his principle of freedom in Christ, and his principle of the oneness of male and female in Christ. “Having down from his head” more naturally refers to long effeminate hair. Accordingly, Chrysostom (c. 344–407), In Ep. 1 ad Cor. hom. 6.4, states, “But with regard to the man, it is no longer about covering but about wearing long hair, that he so forms his discourse.”33 In verses 5–6, Paul mentions hair four times using the words “shaved” and “shorn,” and verse 14 explains that long hair is degrading to men.

In the Dionysiac cult, men wore long hair to symbolize homosexuality or to present themselves as women, and women let their hair down or even shaved it.34 The Roman historian Livy (59 b.c. –a.d. 17) writes that in Dionysiac initiation rites “there were more lustful practices among men with one another than among women.”35 Paul opposed such homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 6:11, stating, “such were some of you.” First Corinthians 10:7–8 warns against “pagan revelry” and “sexual immorality” that, like the practices in seventeen passages in 1 Corinthians (5:1–2, 9–10; 6:9; 8:10; 9:1, 19; 10:7–8, 2 21, 2 25–28; 11:4–9, 13–14, 2 21–22 ; 12:2; 14:2–4, 5–17, 2 23, 2 26–33), reflect the Dionysiac cult. Unlike a garment covering, effeminate hair was shameful to “every man,” Greek, Jewish, and Roman.

Why did Paul use the vague expression “down from the head”? Paul probably wanted to avoid speaking directly of such disgraceful things, as Ephesians 5:12 explains. The Corinthians were aware of the homosexual associations of men wearing long effeminate hair and would understand this euphemism, like those in 1 Corinthians 5:1 and 7:1.

Susanna Krizo wrote back, and I have interspersed comments introduced with “COM:” in her message below:

That the Corinthians were influenced by the Dionysus cult and that 1 Cor 11 reflects it is only natural considering that the god was worshipped in Corinth. However, I don’t think the issue was about women letting their hair down and homosexuality for the following reasons:

1. Paul had already stated that they had amended their way of life in 6:9-11:

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

It would be strange for him to rebuke the Corinthians for a behavior they had already rejected.

COM: 1 Cor 5:1 states, “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans: for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn?” RSV. If they did this, why should it be unthinkable that some men there might wear effeminate hair? Or that some of the women there might let their hair down as a sign of their freedom?

2. He is praising the Corinthians for having kept the traditions he gave them but he wants them to know something additional, (that a woman should be covered etc)

COM: Yes, this does clearly imply that what follows addresses something new. If, as the common interpretation has it, Paul is merely telling them to wear a garment over their heads as was customary in all the churches, this would not be something new. Effeminate hair and hair let down would be something new, something that it is unlikely that Paul would have addresses before because it is such strange behavior, at least in that culture.

which leads us to believe that their behavior was exhibiting a correct teaching, but they went about it in a wrong way.

COM: Nothing in Paul’s wording implies that their behavior was exhibiting a correct teaching. 1 Cor 11:4-16 tries to change their behavior because it exhibits incorrect teaching.

This becomes clear since he immediately afterwards writes that he was not praising them for their behavior when it came to the Lord’s Supper, during which some got drunk and other were hungry, and here we can clearly see the effect of the cult of Dionysus, the god of wine. Their behavior during the communion exhibited selfishness and disregard for the poor, which was against the spirit of the Gospel. The issue with the head covering, however, did not earn such a rebuke from Paul.

COM: It is not addressed as a breach of what Paul had taught them before, but it is repeatedly called “disgraceful” and the men’s display is said to be “against nature or the natural order of things.” Surely this is a rebuke.

3. It is true that the text never say the man should be uncovered (akatakalypto), instead the man should not have “something down his head.” But because verse 7 uses the word katakalypto when speaking about the man, the concept becomes problematic, for why would Paul say a man should not tie up his hair, if he wasn’t able to do in the first place (because his hair was short).

COM: How is this problematic? Of course they would have to have long hair or a wig in order to do hair up over their heads. We know from Greek literature and art that men did this (see the passages quoted in our previous correspondence). It was, apparently, an advertisement for homosexual relations, just as it is today.

 I.e. the men he was talking about had to have long hair, but if they were not to tie up their hair, they had to let it hang down loosely. There really is no way around it.

COM: Yes, there is. It makes sense given the cultural attitudes toward long effeminate hair worn by men, that Paul would prohibit both long hair done up, as he does in 11:7, and long hair no matter how it is worn, up or down, as he does in 11:14. Furthermore, if a man wore a wig, the option was either to wear it or not to wear it. It was not either to wear it up or to wear it down.

The meaning of the word katakalypto is defined in verse 6:

“For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.”

Being uncovered was as if the woman was shaved,

COM: The text does not require this. It most naturally refers to the bitter water custom that an accused adulteress had her hair let down as the sign of an accused adulteress. If she was convicted her hair was cut off. Therefore the woman who lets her hair down is “one and the same with a shorn woman” for she puts on herself the sign of an accused adulteress. Both were shameful. But this is not defining hair let down as being shaved. I am confident the women in Corinth who let their hair down had no intention of cutting it off. Paul is trying to show them how disgraceful what they were doing was and to shame them out of doing it.

which you link to the Jewish law and the adulterous woman. I think it is quite improbable that the Corinthians, who were not able to discern between the rituals of Dionysus and Christianity, knew the Hebrew Bible well enough to catch the significance of the comparison.

COM: Man and Woman, One in Christ cites several Hellenistic parallel customs. Furthermore, remember that the Christian Bible at that time was the OT. Paul probably makes allusions to things he had taught them. It is unwarranted to assume that the Corinthians “were not able to discern between the rituals of Dionysus and Christianity.”

In addition, that all Roman women wore their hair tied up when portrayed in public does not mean that all Greek women did,

COM: Based on the graphic portrayals we have of Greek women, this was the overwhelmingly common, virtually universal way Hellenistic women wore their hair, namely done up.

or that all Jewish women, or Syrian women, or Egyptian women did etc. especially in a home, where the church was located in the first century. Since Paul was appealing to creation, and he said that none of the other churches had such a custom, we would have to say also that all women, in all the other churches tied their hair up in the Roman fashion, regardless of where they were found.

COM: Paul says that “we, the churches of God have no such custom,” meaning that they have no custom of women letting their hair down loose in public or men wearing effeminate hair. This does not in any way contradict the possibility that some women (e.g. in Tarsus or Jerusalem) covered their hair with a garment. Can you cite any literary or graphic evidence that any Christian churches had the custom that women should let their hair down loose in public or men should wear effeminate hair? If they exist, they have eluded me.

4. If akatakalypto refers to hair hanging down loosely, the following makes absolutely no sense:

“Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her hair hanging down loosely? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”

COM: You will have to explain to me why this does not make perfect sense for the “effeminate hair/hair let down” interpretation. Paul asks them to judge for themselves, “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her hair hanging down loosely?” the answer is, “Of course not, since that symbolized sexual freedom and availability, as it did in the Dionysiac Cult.” This would be to symbolize in public something contrary to marriage and Christian morality. Similarly, effeminate hair breaks the natural order of things. Males should depict themselves as males, not as females. This entire passage fits the “effeminate hair/hair let down” interpretation perfectly, even to “her hair is given to her for a covering,” so wear your hair as a covering, ladies! is Paul’s message.

It is improper for a woman to pray with her hair hanging down loosely, because it is a dishonor for a man to have long hair?

COM: No. Paul never states this as his logic. Where is the “because” between his two statements of what the natural order teaches? There is none.

If we change akatakalypto to “hair cut short” the text makes all the sense in the world

“Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her hair cut short? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”

COM: This would make sense, but there is no indication in the passage that women were cutting their hair short, nor does Paul ever forbid women from cutting their hair or shaving it. In fact he says, “let her be shorn”! which sits oddly with that interpretation. What he means by “let her be shorn” is that if a woman is willing to take on herself the sign of an adulteress, then also take its punishment, namely be shorn! He says this since he knows that women will not want to be shorn, and this may bring them back to their senses and keep them from letting their hair down and so shaming themselves.

I did a quick search on the internet to see what the grass root has found, and I found one entry in which a college student wrote that pottery images show female followers of Dionysus with their hair cut short, and men with long hair. I don’t know how reliable this information is,

COM: I have not seen evidence of this, but I have found evidence of sex reversal in Dionysiac literature and art, though I have seen it in depictions of Dionysus as both male and female, not of women with short hair. There is, however, an abundance of depictions of Maenads (wild women) with long hair let down loose.

but it would certainly make more sense, especially since the text in 1 Cor 11 speaks of equality. Greece was misogynistic to the core, and it was through mystery cults that women found outlet for their aspirations for equality. Throughout antiquity, women who desired equality cut their hair and wore men’s clothes in order to resemble men, and later Christian theologians would argue whether women would rise as men or remain women, for if they were all going to be equal, it had to mean they were all going to become men. For Greek men, wearing long hair was not problematic for long hair was associated with philosophy and piety,

COM: Read the citations in my earlier correspondence and the 100+ by Herter in RAC, and you will realize that long hair was problematic, and philosophers were ridiculed for it.

wherefore it did not carry such a stigma as it did in Rome.

Paul wanted the Corinthians to know that the woman originated from God, through the man, and therefore there was no need for women to make themselves look like men in order to pray and prophesy. Aristotle had said that a woman has reason but without authority, which was why she had to be ruled by the man. Paul said the woman has and should have authority over her own self (including her reasoning abilities) for she was created by God to be the man’s companion, not his slave or servant, wherefore she should pray and prophesy as a woman, not as a man.

COM: We are agreed here.

… Chrysostom agreed with Tertullian, “Being covered is a mark of subjection and authority, for it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue” [ Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily XXVI]. But he thought also that Paul was referring to the custom of men covering their heads when praying and prophesying and letting their hair grow long, which were both Grecian customs [Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily XXVI], and that the Corinthians themselves thought long hair was a sign of piety [Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily LXXXVI]. He wrote further that a man should not wear a veil when he prays but that long hair is discouraged at all times, while a woman ought to be covered with a veil at all times. Yet, he also equated the covering with long hair.

Wherefore, as touching the woman, he said, “But if she be not veiled, let her also be shorn;” so likewise touching the man, “If he have long hair, it is a dishonor unto him.” He said not, “if he be covered” but, “if he have long hair,” Wherefore also he said at the beginning, “Every man praying or prophesying, having any thing on his head, dishonors his head.” He said not, “covered,” but “having any thing on his head;” signifying that even though he pray with the head bare, yet if he have long hair, he is like to one covered. “For the hair,” says he, “is given for a covering.” [ Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily XXVI].

COM: I believe this shows that Chrysostom understood Paul to be speaking of men wearing long hair (not a garment) as shameful.

And because Paul did not write “let her have long hair” but “let her be covered,” he “affirm[ed] the covering and the hair to be one.” Chrysostom had to naturally answer the question how the woman could be considered shaved if she discarded the veil considering her long hair was a covering, and he reconciled the problem by writing that the woman’s long hair was a lesson given by nature so she might learn to veil herself.

…

It was common for both men and women, including the Emperor, to wear veils in worship in the Greco-Roman world, but the assumption that Paul forbade men from wearing veils during Christian worship does not explain why women would have discarded the veil [http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/corinthians/veils.stm; Global Ministries, The United Methodist Church].

…

Just as Chrysostom equated long hair with the covering, Tertullian recognized that the text spoke about the length of hair, “Hence let the world, the rival of God, see to it, if it asserts that close-cut hair is graceful to a virgin in like manner as that flowing hair is to be a boy.” Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, VII.

COM: this shows that Tertullian regarded that close-cut hair to be graceful to a virgin, just as 11:5-6 implies. It does not show that Tertullian regarded Paul’s topic as “close-cut hair” or that Paul was writing to prohibit women from wearing “close-cut hair.”

The same is also found Ambrose, Three Books on the duties of the Clergy, Book I, Ch XLVI, calls the woman’s long hair a natural veil. But the most explicit reference to long hair is found in a letter from Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis to John, Bishop of Jerusalem.

Paul, too, the “chosen vessel,” who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. “A man,” he says, “ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.” Letter LI. From Epihanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, 6.

COM: this shows that Epiphanius agrees with the thesis that Paul is talking about men wearing effeminate hair.

The letter was written originally in Greek in 394 CE, but it was translated by Jerome into Latin at the writer’s request, see The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. VI. Jerome: Letters and Select Works. (Logos Research Systems: Oak Harbor 1997, Schaff, Philip). Also Jerome understood katakalypto to refer to long hair, “Vos ipsi iudicate decet mulierem non velatem orare Deum. Nec ipsa natura docet vos quod vir quidem si comom nutriat ignominia est illi. Mulier vero comom nutriat Gloria est illi quoniam capilli pro velamine ei dati sunt.” The English translation of the Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, translates the above, “You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach that a man indeed, of he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.” Jerome clearly equated being covered with the woman’s long hair which she should nourish and not cut off.

NB: COM: It is instructive that the word for “uncovered” in v. 13 is immediately followed by the rhetorical questions about long hair. This does support the view that Paul is concerned with women being “uncovered” in the sense of not using their long hair “as a covering” (v. 15).

I know very well that the fourth century church strayed from the original course in more than one aspect, but they all seemed to agree that the text spoke of long hair vs. short hair.

COM: I have not made an exhaustive study of fourth century church fathers regarding “long hair vs. short hair.” Most of your quotations specifically about short hair above, however, are not about 1 Cor 11 and so are not included in this abbreviated dialogue, but rather about ascetic trends. How much evidence do you have the writers regarded Paul to be portraying a prohibition of women wearing short hair as his central concern? Simply quoting verses 5-6 or 13-15 does not count since they support the “no hair let down” thesis better than the “no short hair” thesis.

That they used the text to prescribe a veil also enforces the concept that the text speaks of long hair for women, not that it must be tied up in a particular way.

COM: My point is not that hair “must be tied up in a particular way.” There were lots of ways Greek and Latin women did up their hair, rough linen or woolen strips, hair nets, cords, combs, gold thread, plaiting, and braiding. But that it be done up was a big deal and remarkably consistent, and letting it down had strong associations with sexual freedom that fits Paul’s language of shame and obligation well.

I hope you understand that the reason I am writing this is that I want to find the true meaning of the text and stop the hierarchical theologians from using it to justify female subjection. I very much appreciate your research for I never connected 1 Cor 11 to Dionysus, and now that I have looked at the evidence, it looks very compelling. But as a native European I know also that Rome did not have as much say in the local cultures as they wanted the rest of the world to think. Russia used to own Finland, but it made the Finns only more patriotic, and determined not to allow Russia to deprive them from their cultural heritage. We must also realize that Rome inherited the laws and philosophy of Greece, which they modified to suit their own particular temperament (Nero got in trouble with the Romans because of his fondness for Grecian luxury) for the Romans and Greeks were distinct in their thinking. I have also a hard time seeing Paul as an advocate for Roman customs, and as enforcer of Jewish law on the Gentiles, which the loose hair-shaved hair comparison demands. That said, I am sure that we are closer to the truth now than we were a year ago.

COM: Thank you for your thoughtful comments. It is not my contention that Paul was advocating Roman customs. The text of 1 Cor 11:2-16 indicates that Paul is objecting to practices by men and women in the Corinthian church that undermined Christian morality and marriage, namely that men wearing effeminate hair were depicting themselves as women contrary to God’s differentiation of man and woman in creation, and women were letting their hair down symbolizing sexual freedom and repudiation of their marriage vows (whether they intended to convey the latter or not). Paul prohibits leaders in Christian worship in either the horizontal (prophecy) or vertical (prayer) from such symbolism that was incompatible with the Christian message.

Blessings,

Susanna Krizo

Daniel Buck asked, “You make a big deal of the fact that 1 Timothy 3:1–13 has no masculine pronouns. But there aren’t any feminine pronouns in 1 Timothy 5:3–14, a passage discussing the role of widows. So what’s to keep men who have lost their wives from serving as widows?”

My answer: I have to deal with the fact that the standard Greek texts of 1 Timothy 3:1–13 have no masculine pronouns because most  translations insert them into the text, and English readers incorrectly assume that there are corresponding masculine pronouns in the underlying Greek text, when there are not.

Furthermore, there is no dispute that 1 Tim 5:3-16 is dealing specifically with women. Widows are repeatedly identified as the subject (5:3, 4, 5, 9, 16). 5:3 has a feminine article. 5:5 has a feminine participle, which, like the following feminine participles, identifies the subject as female. 5:6 has a feminine article and two feminine participles. 5:9 has a feminine participle that makes it unambiguous that “one-man woman” (ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή) specifically describes a woman. 5:10 has a feminine participle. The comparative adjective in 5:11 is feminine. 5:12 has a feminine participle. 5:13 has two feminine participles. 5:14 has a pronominal adjective identifying the subject to be younger women. 5:16 has a feminine pronoun and is part of this section on widows, so it is not correct to say that there are no feminine pronouns in this passage discussing the role of widows. 5:16 also has a feminine article with “widows.” Each of these factors and the standard use of χήρα to identify female widows ["χήρα, -ας, ἡ fem. of χῆρος = bereft (of one’s spouse)" BAG 889] make it clear that Paul is not talking about men who have lost their wives as widows.

Daniel Buck also asked, “Why is it that you are so easily able to see women referred to in the use of terms like μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα (a one-woman man) but aren’t as eager to include men as referents of terms like ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή (a one-man woman)?”

My answer: The subject of 1 Tim 5:9 is the feminine χήρα, which, apparently without exception in Greek literature refers only to women. Furthermore, 5:9 has a feminine participle that makes it unambiguous that the one-man woman specifically describes a woman. There is no corresponding element in the context of 1 Tim 3:2 that makes it unambiguous that “one-woman man” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα) specifically describes a man.  1 Tim 3:1 specifically states that “whoever [τις, the same word used of widows in 1 Tim 5:4] desires the office of overseer desires a good work.” Paul clearly intends this to encourage people to desire this good work. Is it likely Paul would identify the subject as “whoever” and encourage them to desire this good work if for women it was forbidden fruit?

Two of the most prominent complementarians acknowledge this phrase does not clearly exclude women. Douglas Moo acknowledges that this phrase need not exclude “unmarried men or females from the office … it would be going too far to argue that the phrase clearly excludes women….” Douglas J. Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Rejoinder,” TJ 2 NS (1981): 198–222, 211. Thomas Schreiner acknowledges, “The requirements for elders in 1 Tim 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9, including the statement that they are to be one-woman men, does not necessarily in and of itself preclude women from serving as elders….” Thomas R. Schreiner’s “Philip Payne on Familiar Ground: A Review of Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.” JBMW (Spring 2010): 33–46, 35.

The closest English equivalent to “one-woman man” is “monogamous,” and it applies to both men and women. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines monogamy on p. 920, “1. the practice or state of being married to only one person at a time 2. [Rare] the practice of marrying only once during life 3. Zool. the practice of having only one mate—monogamist n. —monogamous… adj.”

In any event, there is a general consensus that 1 Tim 3:2 is an exclusionary phrase. It excludes from the office of overseer those who are not monogamous (and probably those who are not living in sexual fidelity). It is generally agreed that it is not a requirement that all overseers must be married. Otherwise Paul and Christ could not be overseers, and Christ is the only person named in the NT as an overseer (ἐπίσκοπος). Indeed, if being a “one-woman man” is a requirement rather than an exclusion, virtually the entire Catholic priesthood would be excluded. If this were an exclusion, even if it were to be proven to be exclusively male in reference, it would not exclude women from being overseers. It would simply exclude men who are not “one-women men” from being overseers.

Daniel Buck responded to this answer, “Thanks! Your answer is very satisfying. I hope you can appreciate my approach, as I represent the typical reader who didn’t take 3 years of Greek and wonders why you Greek scholars seem to play so fast and loose with God’s Inspired Word. Half of your explanation was in the book–that the Greek of ch. 3 didn’t exclude women, counterintuitive as that may seem to someone who read that chapter in the TNIV–which, he had been assured, renders all gender-neutral Greek words into gender-neutral English ones. Therefore it is linguistically appropriate to turn English masculine words inth English gender-neutral words, on the basis of the Greek. The other half was what you have just done–explaining that the same things can’t be done in turning English feminine words into English gender-neutral ones in ch. 5, because the underlying Greek sure enough does support the feminine translation only.”

My comment: It is, indeed, misleading when a version assures its readers that it will or will not do something and then does the opposite. The ESV makes many such assurances that it repeatedly breaks when the Greek text, but not its English translation, supports the leadership of women in the church. My forthcoming review of the ESV Study Bible identifies in many specific instances of this. We desperately need a more accurate translation of the Greek of Paul’s passages about the ministry of women. One of the goals of my book is to identify for non-specialists where various translations have not fairly represented the Greek and to provide solid evidence for a natural reading of these crucial texts in God’s Word.

Daniel Buck asked in closing, “As an aside, why do you suppose Paul gave no instructions for widowers?”

My answer: 1 Timothy 5:3 states, “Honor widows who are real widows.” “Honor” in this verse refers to financial support, as is evident in the contrast in v. 4 regarding widows who have children or grandchildren who can support them (cf. vv. 8 and 16, regarding the obligation to provide financial support to one’s widowed relatives) and the statement in v. 5 that by “real widows” Paul refers to widows who are “left all alone.” In Paul’s day, most women were dependent on their families for financial support. Widows without supporting relatives lacked means of financial support in a way that widowers did not. Consequently Paul made these provision for widows and not for widowers, who could work outside the home and as a group did not have nearly the need for support as widows.

Update: On March 22 I revised my Jan. 14 response to Peter Head, giving proof of the antiquity of distigmai. Thanks to Timothy A. E. Brown for recommending these revisions.

Update: I have again revised this critique on March 27, 2010, correcting an error. Thanks to Brendan Payne  for this observation.

Update: I have again revised this critique on March 30, 2010, standardizing the spelling of obelus, metobelus, and hexaplaric. Thanks to Professor Keith Elliott for this recommendation.

Update: I have again revised this Critique on March 31, 2010, including reference to Amphoux. Thanks to Professor Keith Elliott for this recommendation.

Update: I have again revised this Critique on April 15, 2010, adding images of the marginalia and making it much more concise.

First, in 1 Cor 11:16 Paul objects to the manner of praying and prophesying by men and women in Corinth since it is being done in a way that is not practiced in “the churches of God.” If the shameful acts had nothing to do with what is done in church, why would Paul argue against them by saying, “we, the churches of God, have no such custom”? Therefore, it is most natural to understand that Paul is writing about an abuse of head coverings by those praying or prophesying in church. To say that the abuse is limited to actions outside Christian assemblies is inconsistent with Paul’s assertion that this abuse is foreign to the customs of “the churches of God.”

Second, Paul identifies the abuse as disgraceful behavior related to something covering the head of men and something not covering the head of women. Whether one’s head is “covered” would only be an issue in public prayer and prophecy, not in private. Since public gatherings of the church are the locus of prophecy everywhere else in Paul’s writings, to say that the abuse is limited to actions outside Christian assemblies is to exclude most obvious application of this passage.

Third, Paul regulates praying and prophesying first by men and then by women with no indication of a change in setting. Since there is no question that men prayed and prophesied in church, to limit women’s praying and prophesying to occasions outside of church is to limit arbitrarily and without contextual warrant, the sphere of an activity by women only and not by men, even though they are both addressed without any such distinction as regards the context of praying and prophesying.

Fourth, Paul addresses his concerns in both halves of 1 Corinthians 11 to “you” plural, and the “you” he is writing to is “the church in Corinth” (1 Cor 1:2). He introduces 1 Cor 11:2-16 with “I praise you (plural).” He introduces and closes the next paragraph, 1 Cor 11:17-22, which discusses abuses in the Lord’s Supper and is clearly a practice in the church, with “I do not praise you (plural).” Since both address the church regarding shameful actions, it is only natural to understand each as relating to the church. 1 Cor 11:17 specifically refers to “when you come together,” and the reference to “the angels” in 1 Cor 11:10 most naturally refers to the presence of angels in Christian worship.

Fifth, 1 Corinthians 14 explicitly addresses the gathered church (ἐκκλησία occurs in 14:4, 5, 12, 19, 23, 28, 33, 34, and 35). It repeatedly speaks of all prophesying in worship services or otherwise encourages all to prophesy:

1 Cor 14:1 calls the Corinthians (not just the Corinthian men) to “earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.”

1 Cor 14:5 “Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy.”

1 Cor 14:23-25  “If, therefore, the whole church assembles… if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, that one is convicted of sin and brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare.”

1 Cor 14:31, 33 “For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged …  in all the congregations of the saints.”

1 Cor 14:39 “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy….” (TNIV, appropriately expressing the breath of application of ἀδελφοί)

Since Paul is addressing the whole church, not just the men in the church, and since the primary focus of his statements is prophecy, which chapter 11 affirms for both women and men, the only natural reading of these references to “all” prophesying includes women in this context. 

Sixth, Paul repeatedly in 1 Corinthians 14 defines the purpose of prophecy as edification of the assembly of believers (the church):

1 Cor 14:2-3 “For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God. … But those who prophesy speak to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and comfort.”

1 Cor 14:4 “Those who speak in a tongue edify themselves, but those who prophesy edify the church.”

1 Cor 14:5 “Those who prophesy are greater than those who speak in tongues, unless they interpret, so that the church may be edified.” (cf. also v. 12)

1 Cor 14:31, 33 “For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged… in all the assemblies of the saints.”

Since Paul defines the purpose of “prophesy” as “to edify the church,” its very purpose as defined by Paul identifies it as an activity in the church, namely in gatherings of believers. Since Paul defines the purpose of “prophesy” as “to edify the church,” it would be a distortion of his clear intent to deny that his regulations for women prophesying apply to women prophesying in gatherings of believers.

To summarize, the idea that Paul’s affirmation of women prophesying does not apply in church is inconsistent with Paul’s reference in this context (v. 16) to customs of “the churches of God.” Head “covering” would, in any event, only be an issue in public prayer and prophecy, not in private. Furthermore, this passage addresses men and women without any distinction regarding where either may pray and prophesy. It specifically address the church in Corinth, and the reference to “the angels” in 1 Cor 11:10 most naturally refers to the presence of angels in Christian worship. Paul repeatedly affirms that “all” may prophecy in the church (14:5, 24, 31) and encourages “all” to prophecy in assemblies of believers (14:1, 23-25, 31, 39). In light of 11:2-16, the only natural reading of these references to “all” prophesying includes women. Furthermore, Paul repeated defines prophesying as edifying the church in 1 Cor 14:2-3, 4, 5, and 31. For all these reasons, it is evident that Paul’s affirmation of women prophesying does apply in assemblies of believers, namely in the church.

“Readers are highly encouraged to spend time with this masterpiece. (Note: Those who choose to ignore the footnotes do so to their loss. Payne has painstakingly annotated all of his sources and provided considerable comments showing where some have either misrepresented or under-represented the data to support their alternative interpretations.)

Chapter 7 “1 Corinthians 11:2-3: Head/Source Relationships” is worth the price of the book many times over. Payne canvasses all the relevant historical and contemporary interpretations for the meaning of κεφαλη (“head”) giving fifteen reasons to understand this term to mean “source” and not “authority.” Payne writes: “The LXX translators [Greek translation of the Old Testament] overwhelmingly (in 226 of 239 instances) chose κεφαλη to translate literal instances of ‘head.’ Yet in only 6 of 171 instances where ‘head’ [in Hebrew] may convey ‘leader’ did they translate it with the metaphor κεφαλη in a way that clearly means leader. In contrast, the NASB, reflecting the natural metaphorical use of ‘head’ to convey ‘leader’ in English, translates 115 of these 171.

Payne’s case against a subordinationist Christology is carefully argued and deserves a keen look.

Chapter 8 shows the importance of understanding the background of Corinth and the situation Paul is addressing. Fourteen reasons are given to show the expression “hanging down from the head” is addressing “long, effeminate hair (or its homosexual symbolism)” on men as disgraceful. Since Christ is man’s source (1 Cor 11:3), then having hair like a woman undermines not only marriage, but blurs the lines of sexual distinction between men and women, thus bringing shame on the work of Christ in creation.

Chapter 9  Furthermore, since Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures portrayed respectable women wearing their hair done up in public, it maligned a woman’s dignity and honor to let down her hair. Payne offers fourteen reasons why the “uncovering” meant letting down a woman’s hair. One of those reasons caught my attention because I’ve always been confused by what Paul meant in 1 Cor 11:5 “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.” Payne clarifies: In Paul’s day, an accused adulteress had her hair let down, and shaving was the penalty of a convicted adulteress. This explains why an uncovered woman is the same as a woman with shorn hair (11:5). This explanation works only if “uncovered” refers to hair let down.

Chapter 10 “1 Corinthians 11:7-10: Theological Reasons for Head-Covering Rules” removes a great deal of mystery surrounding this passage and paints a coherent picture for the entire pericope. The underlying question of 11:7 is “What does it mean for man to be the ‘image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man?’” Payne explains, “Men wearing effeminate hair were deliberately making their hair look like a woman’s hair, thus making themselves into the ‘image’ or ‘likeness’ of a woman” rather than “accept themselves as the men that God made them.” The sexual differentiation between man and woman that collectively portray the image of God is undermined by effeminate hair. Similarly, woman is the glory of man, not because she is subject to him, but because she, not another man, is the sexual partner designed for him at creation. “Woman is depicted as the crowning glory of creation made specifically to be man’s partner” (see Gen 2:23 for the exultation from man when first seeing his created partner).

Verse 10, The text says it is the woman who possesses and retains authority over her own head; it is not imposed by a symbol or by a male.

What about the “angels” Paul mentions in verse 10? Payne’s explanation really piqued my interest. After noting how Paul highlights the roles of angels elsewhere with their implied presence in the world and in worship (1 Cor 4:9; 13:1; 1 Tim 5:21; see also Heb 1:14; Rev 1:20; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14), Payne states:

It ought to be embarrassing enough for a woman to be seen by others in the church with her hair let down, but knowing she is being observed by God’s holy angels should be reason enough for even the most foolhardy woman to restrain her urge to let her hair down. Consequently, Paul writes that a woman ought to have control over her head on account of the angels’ presence in worship.

Chapter 11 “1 Corinthians 11:11-12: The Equal Standing of Woman and Man in Christ” makes the case for full equality between man and woman in the church. The central concern of verse 11 is the meaning of χωρις (“set apart” but see NIV, ESV, NASB, NRSV, which translate χωρις as “independent of”). Upon showing Pauline usage of χωρις and noting all the lexical renderings, Payne concludes χωρις means “set apart” since “the normal meaning of χωρις virtually demands that this statement be understood as an affirmation that in Christ there is no separation between woman and man.” Taken together with verse 12 this “provides reasoning that supports Paul’s affirmation of the equality of woman and man in the Lord. It does this by pointing out that every man’s source in woman balances woman’s source in Adam and by asserting that all this comes from God. Thus, the equal standing of woman and man in Christ is rooted in creation and biology and has its source in God.”

Most importantly, Payne argues that in 1 Cor 11:12 “Paul is intentionally counterbalancing his earlier statement that man is the source of woman [see 1 Cor 11:8]. As Adam was the instrumental source of the first woman, so woman is the instrumental source in the order of nature of all subsequent men…Consequently, both men and women should show respect to the other as their source.”

Chapter 12 “1 Corinthians 11:13-16: The text unambiguously insists that men with long hair are a disgrace to themselves and their Creator, going against the natural order. On the other hand, women with long hair properly worn up as a covering portrays her glory and distinctive beauty as created by God.

Chapter 13 “1 Corinthians 11:2-16: Conclusion and Application”. My own summary is brief. It runs something like this. Paul objects to:

1. Men in leadership with effeminate hairstyles because of the association with homosexuality and the repudiation of the distinction between the sexes.
2. Women in leadership with hair hanging loosely because of the association with the sexually promiscuous.

And, 1 Cor 11:11-12 clearly demonstrates that both male and female are equal in the Church yet retain their uniqueness as exclusive partners created for one another.

Payne shows a sensitive pastoral tone that is in touch not only with the church of the first century but that of the twenty-first century.

Chapter 14 Without question, this chapter entitled “1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Did Paul Forbid Women to Speak in Church?” was the most weighty in technical details surrounding the text (The weight was exponentially increased for those of us who read all the footnotes!). I’ve some exposure to textual criticism but have not been trained formerly in it. Nevertheless, though the pages turned much slower for me, it was worth the effort since I learned a great deal about this important question.

Payne begins by noting that the “widely varying interpretations face three key issues: textual, exegetical, and systematic.” The central textual issue is “whether these verses are an interpolation not in the original text.” The central exegetical question focuses upon “whether Paul’s first-century Hellenistic audience would accept the obvious meaning of these words or would demand some qualification.” Finally, the systematic concern must address

“how to reconcile this triple demand for women to be silent in church with: (1) Paul’s approval of women praying and prophesying in church when their heads are “covered” (1 Cor 11:4-13); (2) “each has a hymn, a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation” (14:26); (3) “you can all prophesy” (14:24, 31); (4) “all speak in tongues” (14:5, 18, 23, cf. 27); (5) the “Amen” custom (14:16); and (6) “be eager to prophesy and do not forbid speaking in tongues” (14:39).

After outlining four possibilities employed to confront this apparent contradiction (viz., that women are permitted to pray and prophesy in the church yet must remain silent), Payne concludes all are deficient. The best text-critical data, according to Payne and “most scholars who have published their analyses of the text-critical aspects of this passage,” show 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is indeed a later addition to the original Pauline text. If true, this of course removes the charge of contradiction. The remainder of the chapter analyzes evidence for interpolation. [Incidentally, if readers wish to follow ongoing discussions for interpolation of vv. 34-35, see Payne's entries and the entries at Evangelical Textual Criticism.)

To pique readers' interests I will only highlight the major points put forth arguing for interpolation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. [Note: For other examples of likely interpolations, see Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11.] Payne offers the following:

External Evidence for 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as an Interpolation

1. Transcriptional Probability Argues That 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Is an Interpolation
2. Codex Vaticanus’s Distigme at the End of 14:33 Points to Interpolation
3. Codex Fuldensis’s Text Corrected by Bishop Victor Omits 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
4. The Most Reasonable Explanation of MS 88’s Treatment of 14:34-35 Is That MS 88 Was Copied from a Manuscript That Omitted These Verses
5. Clement of Alexandria Reflects a Text of 1 Corinthians without 14:34-35
6. The Apostolic Fathers Give No Sign of Awareness of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
7. There Is a High Incidence of Textual Variants in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Internal Evidence

1. Verses 34-35 Contradict Paul’s Encouraging Women to Speak in Church
2. Verses 34-35 Interrupt the Flow of Paul’s Argument
3. Verses 34-35 Make Alien Use of Vocabulary from the Chapter
4. Verses 34-35 Conflict with the Goal of Instruction in Church
5. The Use of “just as the Law says” Does Not Fit Paul’s Theology or His Style of Expression
6. Contrary to Paul Championing the Downtrodden, Verses 34-35 Subordinate a Weak Social Group
7. The Vocabulary of Verses 34-35 Appear to Mimic that of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
8. The Command in Verse 34 Addresses Women “in the churches”
9. The Content of Verses 34-35 Fits an Obvious Motive for Interpolation

Payne finishes the chapter with this sober, and in my estimation sound, conclusion:

The thesis that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation fits the external and internal evidence far better than any other thesis. If 1 Cor 14:34-35 is a non-Pauline interpolation, it does not carry apostolic authority and should not be used as such to restrict the speaking ministries of women, nor should it influence the exegesis of other NT passages.

The last half of Philip B. Payne’s book 

Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters begins an exegesis of Paul’s later writings in Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Timothy and deals with some of the most contentious passages dividing the Church over the role of women in the Church and the world.

Chapter 15 “Ephesians 5:21-33 and Colossians 3:18-19: Husband-Wife Relationships” focuses on the text of Ephesians, though Payne shows that the parallel expressions in both of these passages indicate they are addressing the same issues. Thus, whatever bears upon the one passage must bear upon the other. Payne chooses to deal primarily with the longer passage of Ephesians.

After noting differences between family life in Paul’s day with that of contemporary culture, Payne opines “While Paul’s wording was framed in order to speak to people in his own social structure, one must not assume that he intended to make those social structures normative for all societies. If Paul were writing today, he would probably give different commands to uphold the same principles.” As I understand and have experienced, what traditional Christianity has done is make normative what was not intended, thus missing the principles that Paul was actually getting at in the text. This is a very insightful hermeneutical principle: commands issued may be culturally relative, but the principles behind them could be timeless. Moreover, while complementarians (a term that, with some slight nuances, merely denotes a hierarchical structure of male authority over the female in the home and in the Church) charge that cultural background is overused by biblical egalitarians to support their case, Payne might suggest complementarians under use it and end up with an inconsistent hermeneutic. Of course, inconsistency begets inconsistency and the outworking of this in life becomes clear. Payne states:

Advocates of a hierarchical structure in marriage of wives to their husbands in effect endorse the patriarchal structure of marriage that was pervasive in Paul’s day. If they were consistent, they probably would also advocate the corresponding dictates of the patriarchal structure (as many used to do) that children, even much older children, ought to be subordinate to their parents, and that slaves ought to be subordinate to their masters….The risk in interpreting “the husband is the head of the wife” as establishing an authority structure in the context of these “house codes” is that one thereby embraces “a very odd understanding of what marriage is: a relationship in which a wife is basically a person controlled by her husband in every respect in the same way as children and slaves.” (quoting Howard Marshall, “Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33,” in Discovering Biblical Equality, all of which is an essential read for those wishing to engage the many issues surrounding biblical egalitarianism.)

Payne lays out Paul’s vision of marriage, showing that it was in sharp contrast to the culture of the day, and warns readers to “consider the evidence [laid down by Payne, pp. 113-139] for reading this passage without reading back into Paul’s words the association of ‘head’ as ‘leader’ that fits English, but is dubious for Greek.

Paul spends a great deal of effort emphasizing unity and love as major underlying themes for the ethical precepts he issues for house codes, principles that are in direct opposition to first-century practices.”True love for one’s wife,” says Payne, “is not compatible with a husband completely controlling her life, just as true love is not compatible with a master completely controlling his slave’s life or for a parent completely controlling his mature child’s life.”

In fact, if Paul were supporting hierarchical structures so prevalent in the first-century, then he likely would not have written Eph 5:21 “submitting to one another” using the reciprocal pronoun. Payne goes shows that the “combination of ‘to place oneself under’ with the reciprocal pronoun defies social stratification, but [the reciprocal pronoun] fits perfectly with Paul’s view of mutuality in the body of Christ in Ephesians.” And, contra Wayne Grudem who argues for a one-directional model of submission, Payne insists that reciprocity applies equally to all parties involved, not merely to some while others are excluded. “If Paul had intended ‘bear one another’s burdens’ (Gal 6:2) to be always one way, the same people always bearing the burdens of others but their burdens never being borne by others, he would not have used the reciprocal pronoun.” Thus, mutuality inheres in Paul’s use of the reciprocal pronoun; to deny it violates the essence of reciprocity and defies Paul’s grammar.

In Ephesians 5:21ff. submission means “voluntary yielding for the sake of love.” [It's noteworthy that 1 Corinthians 16:15 shows τάσσω (tassō), the root of ὑποτάσσω (hypotassō) indicates "devotion," not "under the authority of."]

Payne’s proposal, that we take “submit” to mean “voluntary yielding for the sake of love,” fits all relationships addressed in Ephesians 5:21-6:4: everyone to each other (5:21); wives to husbands (5:22), the Church to Christ (5:24), husbands to wives (5:25-33), children to parents (6:1-4), and slaves to masters (6:5-9). Incidentally, the logic of this suggests: 1) If Paul’s injunction for every believer to submit to one another involves husbands (and clearly it would), then husbands loving their wives is tantamount to submitting to them, given Payne’s definition of submission as “voluntarily yielding for the sake of love.” The basis for and grounding of Paul’s appeal beginning in 5:21 and extending through 6:9, therefore, is not authority but love. This distinguishes Paul’s teaching from other house codes of his day.

“The main thorn in my ability to fully embrace a more ‘egalitarian’, rather than ‘complementarian’ view is the whole ‘in Christ’ and ‘in Adam’ view espoused by Paul. It seems to suggest some notion of headship where Adam’s actions has ramification for all humanity in a way that Eve’s disobedience does not seem to in Paul’s understanding. The notion of ‘federal’ headship seems to still imply some notion of headship as understood by CBMW. I would very much appreciate any insight you can offer with regard to resolving what I see as a point of tension at this point.”

“The reason I raise the ‘in Adam’ and ‘in Christ’ analogy as a difficulty is due to the understanding common in Reformed circles regarding humanity’s incorporation under Adam’s federal headship. That is, Adam’s fall as the head of humanity, not Eve’s, is used by Paul as the theological analogy for humanity’s salvation ‘in Christ’ our head. Perhaps I am still overly influenced by the reformed federal theology of my youth, but I cannot seem to easily dismiss the analogy between Adam’s fall and Christ’s righteousness (and by inference not Eve’s fall) as having no bearing on the discussion on headship in this context. Is there something here which needs further clarification from your perspective? I would be very grateful if you could help me disentangle myself from this issue. Could you perhaps kindly clarify this for me?”

Does Romans 5 Teach Adam’s Federal Headship Implying the Authority of a Husband Over his Wife? 

Philip B. Payne 

© 2010 Payne Loving Trust. All rights reserved.

Concerning the Christ: Adam analogy, like any analogy, one must ask, “What is the point that Paul is making by the analogy?” To read more into the analogy than Paul makes explicit is to risk substituting a private inference for the direct teaching of God’s Word. Cranfield’s ICC commentary on Romans, vol. 1 pp. 269-70 notes, “Paul begins to draw his parallel between Christ and Adam in v. 12, but breaks off at the end of the verse without having stated the apodosis of his sentence, because, realizing the danger of his comparison’s being very seriously misunderstood, he prefers to indicate as emphatically as possible the vast dissimilarity between Christ and Adam before formally completing it.” On p. 281 Cranfield highlights the point of the analogy: “Adam is only mentioned in order to bring out more clearly the nature of the work of Christ. The purpose of the comparison is to make clear the universal range of what Christ has done.”

Does Paul by this analogy intend to teach that Eve was not equally involved in precipitating the Fall as Adam? Paul writes in 2 Cor 11:3, “But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” In 1 Tim 2:14-15 he writes, “the woman being thoroughly deceived and fell into transgression [lit: ‘has become in transgression’], but she will be saved through the Childbirth if they remain in faith and love and holiness with propriety [to counteract socially unacceptable behavior here just as in 1 Tim 2:9 (cf. Cor 11:3–16)].” The association of Eve with her descendents, as the equation of “she” with “they” requires, shows that her transgression affects them, and that her seed (Gen 3:15) crushes the serpent, Satan, and brings salvation to them through “the Childbirth.” Thus, not only does Paul teach that Jesus is the second Adam, Paul also implies that Jesus is the seed of the woman predicted in Gen 3:15, who overcomes the Fall precipitated by the sin of both Eve and Adam.

Since in Hebrew “Adam” identifies both the man in isolation and the man and the woman together in Gen 1:26-27, “let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule…,” and since it was the sin of both the woman and the man that led to the fall in Gen 3, and since God addresses both woman and man (in that order) stating the consequences of the fall, and since there is a corresponding plural contrasting God as “us” and man as “them,” it seems inescapable that Eve did participate in the fall and in its ultimate reversal through her seed.

It should be clear from Paul’s other statements about Eve’s participation in the fall and its account in Genesis that Paul in saying “just as sin entered the world through one man (ἄνθρωπος, not ἀνήρ, ‘male human being’),” did not intend to exclude Eve from the entry of sin into the world. One possibility is that Paul intended “one man” to refer to the Adam (singular) identified as “them” in Gen 1:26-27, as possibly indicated by Paul’s use of ἄνθρωπος rather than ἀνήρ. Paul may have chosen to use the word “Adam” because it is a singular name, even when used to designate the original couple, and so makes a more direct counterpart for the singular name, the one man (ἄνθρωπος, focusing on his humanity, not his being male), Jesus Christ in 5:15, who brings the opposite, salvation from that fall. It should be clear that Paul did not intend this analogy to deny what is obvious from these other texts by Paul and the event he is citing from Genesis, namely the participation of Eve in the Fall.

It is not Adam or Christ as male that is highlighted here, but Christ as human, hence the use of ἄνθρωπος in “though one human being” rather than ἀνήρ, which Paul could have used if he had intended to specify man as male.

Similarly, the results of the transgression leading to the death of all people (ἄνθρωποι) is not intended to refer only to males but also to females, namely to the entirety of humanity. Similarly, as 5:18 states, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all people (ἄνθρωποι), so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all people (ἄνθρωποι).”

Paul says nothing in Romans 5 about “Adam, not Eve” or “male, not female.” Indeed, the words he chose were deliberately gender inclusive, whereas if he had intended to be gender specific he could have used ἀνήρ to identify the male gender, as he does in Rom 7:2-3. Consequently, Romans 5 does not justify that Paul is here referring to “Adam’s fall as the head of humanity, not Eve’s.”

Finally, beware of extrapolations that are not clearly taught in Romans 5. “Adam’s federal headship” is not a biblical expression. Neither “federal” nor “headship” are words that occur in the Bible. Although you wrote about “the discussion on headship in this context,” in fact, Romans 5 mentions nothing about the authority of Adam or of husbands, nor does it mention  “head,” or “headship.” It is about the universal implications (especially death) of Adam’s sin and the universal implications of Christ’s sacrificial death that satisfies the penalty for the sins of all and offers life to all who will accept Him. It is inappropriate to draw conclusions regarding a hierarchy of authority in marriage from a passage that is not about a hierarchy of authority or about marriage. This passage stresses the universality of the consequences of Adam’s sin for all people, women as well as men. It says nothing about the authority of men over women, whether in society, the church, or the home.

“Thank you so much for your book, Man and Woman, One in Christ. I have found it a most challenging and edifying read. From the purely exegetical perspective I think your book is the best I have read to date and certainly places the onus on  the ‘complementarian’ camp to refute. A long time adherent to CBMW’s Danver’s Statement, I had assumed the exegetical and theological issues to be well and truly settled by Wayne Grudem’s research and responses on kephalé, along with Schreiner, Köstenberger et al’s latest tome on 1 Timothy 2. However, your meticulous study of the relevant passages in the Pauline corpus has given me much food for thought and stirred afresh certain reservations I still held regarding CBMW’s position. I thought your argument for interpolation (1 Cor 14:34-35) was very well argued and … persuasive.

I did find your refutation of Moo’s stance convincing and am heartened that he did withdraw his previous position on women’s inate susceptibility to doctrinal deception – a most unfortunate and untenable position if women are then exhorted to teach other women (and children).

Your analysis of kephalé was for the most part clear and persausive – though my competence is based only on three years of koine greek and greek exegetical classes under the godly tutelage of Leon Morris, David Williams and Colin Kruse towards a BTh (US MDiv equivalent) at Ridley College, Melbourne quite a few years back. I must confess I had thought Grudem to be quite meticulous in his articles – and his work seems to be foundational to much of CBMW’s position on kephalé. However, you raised some serious doubts about his research which extends and echoes those mentioned in Thistleton’s and Fee’s commentaries. … I do not think a persuasive defense can be presented for authority being the only viable translation of kephalé based on what your study has shown. Incidentally, I was troubled by your footnotes, which certainly suggest a form of censorship has [been exercised] … by [Köstenberger and Carson]. This certainly does not promote the cause of truth or a ‘Berean’ attitude to matters of controversy between fellow believers. I would have hoped both John Köstenberger and Donald Carson would have had the confidence to allow your responses to be published in the cause of rightly handling the word of truth. 

I am persuaded by the argument that ministry is a matter of the Spirit’s gifting and calling recognised by a congregation.

Please accept this extended email as a sign of the fruitful and stimulating paradigm-changing challenge your book has proven to be for me.

Thank you once again. With your questions in mind, I have set myself the task to re-read your book. I have certainly by God’s grace come a long way from the days when I loudly opposed and even debated against any position which had a whiff of egalitarianism on this subject.

As I have stated previously, you have won me over with regards to ministry roles.

Ben Witherington III on the Bible and Culture in Beliefnet writes:

“One of the questions I often get is what were the best Biblical Studies books that came out this year which should be added to a library. … Here are ten books you need if you wish to be a serious student of the NT– in no particular order:
6) Philip Payne, Man and Woman. One in Christ, As the culture wars rage on in the conservative church about the role of women, a few scholars have spent most of their careers dealing with the detailed historical and exegetical and theological issues. Few have done a better job of dealing with these issues than my old classmate at GCTS, Phil Payne.”

Paul D. Adams in his blog, ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (in Christ Jesus), has given three parts already of a detailed chapter by chapter review of Man and Woman, One in Christ. Following are quotations from each of the first three parts of his review:

“I just received and have begun reading Philip B. Payne’s Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. Scot McKnight gives it the highest recommendation saying “this is the most technically proficient study ever published on women in the Pauline texts.”
I would like to offer some important insights from chapters 1-3 that I found especially enlightening.
From Chapter 1 “Backgrounds to Paul’s Teaching regarding Man and Woman”: After dismantling eleven arguments traditionally put forth from Genesis 1-3 to suggest “God put man in a position of authority over woman,” Payne offers twenty statements based on Gen 1-3 that show man and woman are equal: [he lists all 20].
From Chapter 2, “Women Paul Names as Ministry Leaders,” Phoebe especially caught my interest.  Two things stood out to me: 1) “Since Paul includes himself as having been under Phoebe’s leadership, this was not simply a leadership role over other women.” 2) “Every meaning of every word in the NT related to the word Paul has chosen to describe Phoebe as a “leader” (προστάτις) that could apply in Rom 16:2 refers to leadership.”
From Chapter 3 “Paul’s Theological Axioms Imply the Equality of Man and Woman” Paul Adams lists all 12 axioms.
As I continue reading, more insights from this important work will be posted.”

Paul’s second post states: “Chapter 4 entitled “Galatians 3:28: Man and Woman: One in Christ” is a solid defense of equality for men and women in the Church.
Payne first shows the verbal and syntactical parallels between Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11, and 1 Corinthians 12:13 noting that the principle of equality over traditional barriers is removed and should be applied to all the churches. Later, Payne notes that in 1 Cor 7:17-27 Paul follows the same order of Jew/Gentile (=circumcised/uncircumcised), slave/free, and male/female (=married/unmarried) pairs admonishing all to be content with their status because in Christ these distinctions as barriers to relationships have no practical import.
What really piqued my interests here is Payne’s insistence that “Paul acknowledges the biological reality of male and female and repeatedly stresses the mutual obligations of husbands and wives (e.g., 1 Cor 7). Clearly, then, he is not denying or ignoring the reality of these distinctions.” This is a solid response to some who suggest biblical egalitarians seek to remove all distinctions of gender. Payne could not be clearer when he writes: [long quotation]
After a thorough exegesis of every word in Gal 3:28, as well as showing more parallels from Gal 5:6 and 6:16, Payne essentially argues that unless equality is realized in the practices of the church, there can be no unity. The latter presupposes the former. This is a powerful thought and has much to teach us in the body of Christ.
Finally, Payne beautifully captures the spirit of Paul to the Galatians when he says: “It is not the absence of diversity but the presence of harmony in the midst of diversity that distinguishes the body. ….”
More blurbs from this excellent text will be added soon.”

Paul’s third post states: “Chapter 5 titled “1 Corinthians 7—The Equal Rights of Man and Woman in Marriage,”  although brief, is pregnant with implications for traditional roles between husband and wife. What struck me was that I’ve always understood Paul’s instructions to husbands and wives as mere repetition and have never seen it as “symmetrically balanced to reinforce…equality.” The “symmetry” from the corresponding statements in the biblical texts is undeniable. It is not mere “repetition” as I once thought. In addition, Payne intimates that in cases where the husband is an unbeliever, the wife assumes spiritual leadership in the home (7:14), since she serves as sanctifier for her husband and her children. Payne’s conclusion that “Paul’s vision of the equality of man and woman in marriage” is evident…at least to me.”

“I very much appreciate Payne’s commitment to the biblical texts. While he shows appreciation for the cultural and social backgrounds surrounding the relevant Pauline texts, he does not “foreground” them unnecessarily such that they eclipse God’s holy Word. His high regard for Scripture is obvious. And, in the introduction he fully adopts biblical inerrancy as stated in The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”

Thank you Scott, Ben, and Paul for your encouraging remarks!