When we pray almost every day as Jesus taught us, "Your kingdom come on earth as in heaven" why does the church find it so hard to accept the equality of relationship between men and women in the church? I believe Lucy has complete biblical support for the position she takes. It's time for us men to lay down 'the culture of Christianity' and adopt the culture of the kingdom of God.
Very interesting. I enjoy investigating the scriptures. Especially in the interpretation having to do with the times the scriptures were written. I liked and subscribed...
"11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression". 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (KJV)
"As in ALL the churches of the saints, 34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. 35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church". 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 (ASV)
"22 Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything." Eph 5:21-24 (ASV)
In love, Pope John Paul II also clarifies those scriptures listed above that may bring light to many misunderstandings in his apostolic letter entitled Mulieris Dignitatem (“Dignity of Women”), dated the 15th of August 1988 John Paul II explicitly addresses that “submission is to be mutual in marriage and not one-sided, and help is to be mutual and reciprocal. It is sin that breaks the mutual and equal relationship between man and woman. (Section 9). In his apostolic letter entitled Mulieris Dignitatem (“Dignity of Women”), dated the 15th of August 1988, John Paul II also made many positive statements about women, including Mary Magdalene, that deserve to be more widely known. And I want to share some of them here. I do realise that unless one is a Roman Catholic, these words are not considered as binding or authoritative, but they are mostly based on a careful examination of the Scriptures that we all cherish. “Suitable Helper” (Genesis 2) This is part of what the pontiff said about the creation of woman in Genesis 2 as “helper”. . . . man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist “side by side” or “together”, but they are also called to exist mutually “one for the other”. This also explains the meaning of the “help” spoken of in Genesis 2:18-25: “I will make him a helper fit for him”. The biblical context enables us to understand this in the sense that the woman must “help” the man-and in his turn he must help her -first of all by the very fact of their “being human persons”. In a certain sense this enables man and woman to discover their humanity ever anew and to confirm its whole meaning. We can easily understand that, on this fundamental level, it is a question of a “help” on the part of both, and at the same time a mutual “help”. To be human means to be called to interpersonal communion. (Section 7) According to John Paul II, helping is not something especially required of the woman. Rather, helping should be mutual and a normal part of human relationships. “He will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16b) This is part of what the pontiff said about Genesis 3:16b (“Your desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you”). [In these words] we discover a break and a constant threat precisely in regard to this [pre-fall] “unity of the two” . . . This “domination” indicates the disturbance and loss of the stability of that fundamental equality which the man and the woman possess in the “unity of the two”: and this is especially to the disadvantage of the woman, whereas only the equality resulting from their dignity as persons can give to their mutual relationship the character of an authentic “communio personarum”. While the violation of this equality, which is both a gift and a right deriving from God the Creator, involves an element to the disadvantage of the woman, at the same time it also diminishes the true dignity of the man. (Section 10) The consequences of sin, which God mentions in Genesis 3:16b, are detrimental. The domination of woman disadvantages her and discriminates against her, and it diminishes the man. Submission in Marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33) This is part of what the pontiff said about Ephesians 5:22-33 and the verses, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife . . .” The author [of Ephesians] knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph. 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual. (Section 24) And this: . . . the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: “In Christ Jesus . . . there is no more man or woman”, but also wrote: “There is no more slave or freeman”. Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history? But the challenge presented by the “ethos” of the Redemption is clear and definitive. (Section 24) According to John Paul II, submission is to be mutual in marriage and not one-sided, and help is to be mutual and reciprocal. It is sin that breaks the mutual and equal relationship between man and woman. (Section 9). “ Citing sources from: margmowczko.com/catholic-church-mutual-submission-marriage/ Hope this gives others a more insightful glimpse into God’s heart as we Christians unite to seek God’s truths, wisdom, and heart just as Dr Peppiatt does in her excellent scholarly research.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
I find it interesting that Lucy explains away the long-held historical interpretation of men and women's roles, and defines new ones that she admits have little support biblically. She contradicts what the early church fathers believed, goes against almost 2,000 years of church history interpretation, and explains away, or neglects countless other verses in Scripture that speak of men and women's roles. As Lucy states, she is rewriting what she believes Paul teaches. Humbly said, her hermeneutical foundation is lacking and indefensible. I believe her thesis is none other than a modern day politically correct approach that seeks to explain away Scripture in an effort to arrive at the belief she desires instead of the meaning God intended.
Perhaps if you read the book and humbly considered what she says you might 'get it'. The problem is, when people (men) in a privileged position encounter equality, they see it as a threat and want to hang on to their umbilical position of power and superiority.
Given what you’ve just written, it’s clear you have no understanding of early Church fathers and mothers and the early Church in general. 2000 years of Church history is littered with egregious interpretations of Scripture...so that doesn’t mean we should still hold onto them because SOME (not all) have believed that way.
Men will pay for their selfish aberrations of the Church. Hypocritical Christian men, lacking in Spirit, abusing the Church for power and glory, consistently trace their petty small minded arguments delineating and blaming Eve for the fall, yet it was Adam who lied and deflected. Eve told the truth. We fell because of Adam. We suffer from the violence of descendants of Cain. May the Church be protected from the selfish sins of men who corrupt it.
I would recommend you read what Lucy says rather than seemingly defending your position without actually understanding what you are defending it against.
It grieves my heart too when passages get cherry picked, taken out of context, and spun to oppress people. I thank God for theologians like Dr. Peppiatt who analyze scripture in full scholarly context to help us extract the true heartbeat of God. Too often readers don’t take the time to read the Bible holistically and overlook key contexts and literary style that are used to thread and weave the whole message together from the ideal blueprint described in Genesis to the perfected blueprint in Revelations. The context, which is fantastically explained by Dr Peppiatt, is that city of Corinth was obsessed with pride, power, dominance, and social status and they often used it to shame others of lower (culturally made/earthly) status. In essence, Corinthians were overly ambitious to obtain social and economic status …so much so…that it became like a form of idolatry. This is not the way to live a cruciformed life in Christ as Apostle Paul describes. So, Paul ‘s letters address these bad practices he’s seeing in the church and instructs that, in Christ, we are to repent of such culturally constructed practices and instead practice the Kingdom of God culture. As believers, we are ONE in Christ. And we are supposed to glorify God …not boast and glorify our own socially constructed status. Instead, we are to be reminded of our divine and united status through Christ which we abide in. Our identity is in Christ not our earthly statuses. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galations 3:28 Jesus says…. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.” Matthew 20:25-29 Throughout the Bible we are instructed not to “Lord over each other.” But to mutually love and serve one another as one body of Christ. Desiring power, status, influence over others etc is of the flesh not spirit and we are called to nail/crucify these fleshly/earthly desires/idols to the cross with Jesus and become a new creation in Christ.
This is not a correct representation of the interpretations taken by other commentators. It is an increasingly far fetched explanation of the passage and focused on so many speculative ideas instead of the text itself. I find it strange that Lucy would want to move away from the very concept of headship that is presented in the passage. It's also strange how she would speak of Paul and 'his theology'. Paul is only the messenger of Christ and doesn't have an independent theology. This new and controversial explanation appears to be an attempt to lessen the offense of scripture to our modern day see sensibilities.
Hi Alastair, greeting from Newcastle, UK. Could I encourage you to read a little more around this if you have the time? If it would be helpful, I would be happy to send you some of the books I've been fortunate to have the time to read over the last couple of years. You'll find that 'Paul and his theology' is quite a usual term and idiom used across the board - our prominent Complementarian brothers and sisters (Andreas Kostenberger, Susan Foh, etc) are as comfortable using this phrase as our brothers and sisters on the Egalitarian end of the spectrum. It might be helpful to look at the phrase as it's used in both the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Council for Biblical Equality's respective academic journals, both of which contain authors using the idiom "Paul's theology" or "Paul's theology" comfortably. Lucy Peppiatt's use of the phrase here isn't unique, and doesn't reflect a view that Paul's message and teaching can be separated from it's foundation, Jesus.
@@andypestell7091 Hi Andy, thanks for the message. Predominantly my issue is with some of the explanations. I don't think they are accurate because I've been in churches that take a different view on this topic but no one states the thoughts that Lucy is offering forward in her explanation. Thanks
The role of a theologian is not to parrot what other, potentially biased, theologians have written. It appears you do not have a good understanding of theology. You should not speak about things you do not have an intellectual understanding of.
Thank you so very much! Just finding your work now and am so very appreciative!
I've come here off the 1 Cor bible project classroom. I've bought the book and was looking for an introduction before diving in. Very informative.
So helpful and thankful for her perspective on addressing what appeared to be Paul contradicting himself on his continuous message of Unity and Love.
When we pray almost every day as Jesus taught us, "Your kingdom come on earth as in heaven" why does the church find it so hard to accept the equality of relationship between men and women in the church? I believe Lucy has complete biblical support for the position she takes. It's time for us men to lay down 'the culture of Christianity' and adopt the culture of the kingdom of God.
I think the same rules apply to men and women equally in this chapter. Prophets had a mantle it's the same word as covering look at Elijah and Elisha.
What an insightful interview!
Very interesting. I enjoy investigating the scriptures. Especially in the interpretation having to do with the times the scriptures were written.
I liked and subscribed...
"11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression".
1 Timothy 2:11-14 (KJV)
"As in ALL the churches of the saints,
34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.
35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church".
1 Corinthians 14:33-35 (ASV)
"22 Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body.
24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything."
Eph 5:21-24 (ASV)
In love, Pope John Paul II also clarifies those scriptures listed above that may bring light to many misunderstandings in his apostolic letter entitled Mulieris Dignitatem (“Dignity of Women”), dated the 15th of August 1988
John Paul II explicitly addresses that “submission is to be mutual in marriage and not one-sided, and help is to be mutual and reciprocal. It is sin that breaks the mutual and equal relationship between man and woman. (Section 9).
In his apostolic letter entitled Mulieris Dignitatem (“Dignity of Women”), dated the 15th of August 1988, John Paul II also made many positive statements about women, including Mary Magdalene, that deserve to be more widely known. And I want to share some of them here. I do realise that unless one is a Roman Catholic, these words are not considered as binding or authoritative, but they are mostly based on a careful examination of the Scriptures that we all cherish.
“Suitable Helper” (Genesis 2)
This is part of what the pontiff said about the creation of woman in Genesis 2 as “helper”.
. . . man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist “side by side” or “together”, but they are also called to exist mutually “one for the other”. This also explains the meaning of the “help” spoken of in Genesis 2:18-25: “I will make him a helper fit for him”. The biblical context enables us to understand this in the sense that the woman must “help” the man-and in his turn he must help her -first of all by the very fact of their “being human persons”. In a certain sense this enables man and woman to discover their humanity ever anew and to confirm its whole meaning. We can easily understand that, on this fundamental level, it is a question of a “help” on the part of both, and at the same time a mutual “help”. To be human means to be called to interpersonal communion. (Section 7)
According to John Paul II, helping is not something especially required of the woman. Rather, helping should be mutual and a normal part of human relationships.
“He will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16b)
This is part of what the pontiff said about Genesis 3:16b (“Your desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you”).
[In these words] we discover a break and a constant threat precisely in regard to this [pre-fall] “unity of the two” . . . This “domination” indicates the disturbance and loss of the stability of that fundamental equality which the man and the woman possess in the “unity of the two”: and this is especially to the disadvantage of the woman, whereas only the equality resulting from their dignity as persons can give to their mutual relationship the character of an authentic “communio personarum”. While the violation of this equality, which is both a gift and a right deriving from God the Creator, involves an element to the disadvantage of the woman, at the same time it also diminishes the true dignity of the man. (Section 10)
The consequences of sin, which God mentions in Genesis 3:16b, are detrimental. The domination of woman disadvantages her and discriminates against her, and it diminishes the man.
Submission in Marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33)
This is part of what the pontiff said about Ephesians 5:22-33 and the verses, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife . . .”
The author [of Ephesians] knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph. 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual. (Section 24)
And this:
. . . the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: “In Christ Jesus . . . there is no more man or woman”, but also wrote: “There is no more slave or freeman”. Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history? But the challenge presented by the “ethos” of the Redemption is clear and definitive. (Section 24)
According to John Paul II, submission is to be mutual in marriage and not one-sided, and help is to be mutual and reciprocal. It is sin that breaks the mutual and equal relationship between man and woman. (Section 9). “
Citing sources from:
margmowczko.com/catholic-church-mutual-submission-marriage/
Hope this gives others a more insightful glimpse into God’s heart as we Christians unite to seek God’s truths, wisdom, and heart just as Dr Peppiatt does in her excellent scholarly research.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while
assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off.
So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head
when praying to God.
If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair
each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
I find it interesting that Lucy explains away the long-held historical interpretation of men and women's roles, and defines new ones that she admits have little support biblically. She contradicts what the early church fathers believed, goes against almost 2,000 years of church history interpretation, and explains away, or neglects countless other verses in Scripture that speak of men and women's roles. As Lucy states, she is rewriting what she believes Paul teaches. Humbly said, her hermeneutical foundation is lacking and indefensible. I believe her thesis is none other than a modern day politically correct approach that seeks to explain away Scripture in an effort to arrive at the belief she desires instead of the meaning God intended.
Perhaps if you read the book and humbly considered what she says you might 'get it'. The problem is, when people (men) in a privileged position encounter equality, they see it as a threat and want to hang on to their umbilical position of power and superiority.
Given what you’ve just written, it’s clear you have no understanding of early Church fathers and mothers and the early Church in general. 2000 years of Church history is littered with egregious interpretations of Scripture...so that doesn’t mean we should still hold onto them because SOME (not all) have believed that way.
Men will pay for their selfish aberrations of the Church. Hypocritical Christian men, lacking in Spirit, abusing the Church for power and glory, consistently trace their petty small minded arguments delineating and blaming Eve for the fall, yet it was Adam who lied and deflected. Eve told the truth. We fell because of Adam. We suffer from the violence of descendants of Cain. May the Church be protected from the selfish sins of men who corrupt it.
Those passages are very clearly anti women. That to me is sad. What is also sad is the changing of the New Testament by scribes
No! They are not. The Corinthian men were anti-women; Paul was arguing against them! The passages are pro-equality, just as Jesus is.
I would recommend you read what Lucy says rather than seemingly defending your position without actually understanding what you are defending it against.
It grieves my heart too when passages get cherry picked, taken out of context, and spun to oppress people. I thank God for theologians like Dr. Peppiatt who analyze scripture in full scholarly context to help us extract the true heartbeat of God.
Too often readers don’t take the time to read the Bible holistically and overlook key contexts and literary style that are used to thread and weave the whole message together from the ideal blueprint described in Genesis to the perfected blueprint in Revelations.
The context, which is fantastically explained by Dr Peppiatt, is that city of Corinth was obsessed with pride, power, dominance, and social status and they often used it to shame others of lower (culturally made/earthly) status. In essence, Corinthians were overly ambitious to obtain social and economic status …so much so…that it became like a form of idolatry. This is not the way to live a cruciformed life in Christ as Apostle Paul describes. So, Paul ‘s letters address these bad practices he’s seeing in the church and instructs that, in Christ, we are to repent of such culturally constructed practices and instead practice the Kingdom of God culture. As believers, we are ONE in Christ. And we are supposed to glorify God …not boast and glorify our own socially constructed status. Instead, we are to be reminded of our divine and united status through Christ which we abide in. Our identity is in Christ not our earthly statuses.
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galations 3:28
Jesus says….
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.” Matthew 20:25-29
Throughout the Bible we are instructed not to “Lord over each other.” But to mutually love and serve one another as one body of Christ.
Desiring power, status, influence over others etc is of the flesh not spirit and we are called to nail/crucify these fleshly/earthly desires/idols to the cross with Jesus and become a new creation in Christ.
@@Alohapumehana285 Doesn’t explain away the chauvanism. You claim Paul wrote all these letters but he had some help from Q.
Exactly
This is not a correct representation of the interpretations taken by other commentators. It is an increasingly far fetched explanation of the passage and focused on so many speculative ideas instead of the text itself. I find it strange that Lucy would want to move away from the very concept of headship that is presented in the passage. It's also strange how she would speak of Paul and 'his theology'. Paul is only the messenger of Christ and doesn't have an independent theology. This new and controversial explanation appears to be an attempt to lessen the offense of scripture to our modern day see sensibilities.
Hi Alastair, greeting from Newcastle, UK. Could I encourage you to read a little more around this if you have the time? If it would be helpful, I would be happy to send you some of the books I've been fortunate to have the time to read over the last couple of years. You'll find that 'Paul and his theology' is quite a usual term and idiom used across the board - our prominent Complementarian brothers and sisters (Andreas Kostenberger, Susan Foh, etc) are as comfortable using this phrase as our brothers and sisters on the Egalitarian end of the spectrum.
It might be helpful to look at the phrase as it's used in both the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Council for Biblical Equality's respective academic journals, both of which contain authors using the idiom "Paul's theology" or "Paul's theology" comfortably. Lucy Peppiatt's use of the phrase here isn't unique, and doesn't reflect a view that Paul's message and teaching can be separated from it's foundation, Jesus.
@@andypestell7091 Hi Andy, thanks for the message. Predominantly my issue is with some of the explanations. I don't think they are accurate because I've been in churches that take a different view on this topic but no one states the thoughts that Lucy is offering forward in her explanation. Thanks
The role of a theologian is not to parrot what other, potentially biased, theologians have written. It appears you do not have a good understanding of theology. You should not speak about things you do not have an intellectual understanding of.