In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Illumine our hearts, O Master who loves mankind, with the pure light of thy divine knowledge, and open the eyes of our minds to understand thy gospel teachings. Implant in us also the fear of thy blessed commandments, that, trampling down all carnal desires, we may enter upon a spiritual manner of living, both thinking and doing such things that are well-pleasing to thee. For thou art the illumination of our souls and bodies, O Christ our God, and to thee we ascribe glory, together with thy Father who is from everlasting and thine all-holy and good and life-giving Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Christos anesti, everybody! Welcome to Search the Scriptures Live. I’m Dr. Jeannie Constantinou, and today is May 11, 2020, and yesterday was Mother’s Day, so happy Mother’s Day to all of you moms, grandmothers, godmothers, and aunts and friends. I’ve had a lot of wonderful women in my life who were sometimes very much a mother to me, very close to me, very supportive of me. Those women also, it’s okay to give them a card on Mother’s Day even if they’re not technically your mom. Sometimes those women play very important roles in our lives. So congratulations to all you moms and grandmas and all the rest who deserve that appellation.

We’re in the middle of the pastorals, or at least we’re discussing the pastoral epistles. So, to briefly review, the pastoral epistles are three letters of St. Paul that form a subset within the larger group of letters by Paul. And they’re called the pastoral epistles—this is 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus—because in these letters, St. Paul is giving them advice as to how to be good pastors, good leaders of the Church community, because Timothy was appointed as bishop of Ephesus, and Titus was appointed as bishop of Crete.

These have been disputed modernly by some Bible scholars who say that Paul did not write these letters. Now, there’s a couple of reasons for that. One is because they talk about how to choose Church leaders like bishops and deacons, and they say that this shows a later point of Church development. And I don’t really think that that’s a very good reason, because there were bishops and deacons earlier, before the death of Paul. In other words, they’re saying that these words would have been written maybe 80 or 90, not during the lifetime of Paul, but Paul addresses the bishops and the deacons in the epistle to the Philippians, and nobody says that he didn’t write that. So I think that’s a very weak argument.

But another one of the reasons why is because of the statement that we’re going to talk about tonight, that Paul says he does not permit a woman to teach. That comes off as kind of harsh. Some people say that this was written later, not by Paul, because we know that Paul had female coworkers and things like this. So we’re going to take a look at that today, and I don’t think that’s actually in conflict with what Paul has said before, so we’re going to take a look at this.

So there are two issues we’re going to talk about tonight. I have a lot to tell you about. I’m not sure we’ll finish everything, but we’ll see. One of them has to do with women teaching and being silent, and the other has to do with being saved by childbearing. So here is the passage in question. It’s 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling. Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly, in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire, but by good deeds as befits women who profess religion.

That’s the translation; this is the RSV. The word there, “religion,” is theoseveian. It’s like: women who profess to respect God. It’s not the word “religion,” which is threskeia, but it’s theoseveian: a women who professes that she respects God would dress in this manner.

Let a woman learn in silence, with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men. She is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children if she continues in faith and love and holiness with modesty.

So as I mentioned, first we’re going to talk about the childbearing question, because actually that’s pretty easy to discuss and explain; and then we’ll talk about the issue of women speaking in church.

What does Paul mean by saying that “a woman will be saved through childbearing”? Does this mean that simply having babies is for our salvation? Is that really what he’s trying to say there? Does it mean that any woman who creates a child can be saved, and that’s sort of a credit to her? It can’t be right; it cannot mean that, because that is a natural, physical function. You don’t have to be a believer to make a baby. And what about the women who have never had children? Does this mean that they cannot be saved? Of course not. So we have to look at the context of the statement, and in this case let’s look at the historical context.

Remember whenever we’re faced with a difficult passage, we look at the literary context, what is Paul talking about here, or whoever, whatever verse is under question; what is the context within the larger, within the book as a whole, and sometimes within all of Scriptures; but also there is often an important historical context. We have to remember that as we read these things as 21st-century people, Paul is not writing to 21st-century people; he is writing to first-century people. They didn’t even know they were first-century people. We call them that; we gave them that number. Part of it has to do with the historical times in which Paul lived; that’s undeniable. That doesn’t negate what he is saying—be careful; I’m not suggesting that—but why is he saying this?

Because until very, very, very recently until human history, women were primarily confined to the home and to domestic duties. So if you talk about working out your salvation, how do you do that? How do you do that except through their life as a wife and a mother? So we understand that we are supposed to work out our salvation in whatever circumstances we find ourselves. Sometimes we have chosen a career path, so we reflect the life of Christ within us in that place, in that way, through our day-to-day dealings in our career. Whether or not we’re married or single, or male or female, regardless of our social class or economic circumstance, this is how we show our faith, and we work out our salvation in that manner.

So for women, what was there? There were very few choices. There was really almost we could say prior to Christ you could only be… you were expected to grow up and be a wife and mother, unless you became a woman of ill-repute. In the Church, the Church was really the first to offer women an alternative, and that was the monastic life. And if you say, “Well, here’s my choice: I can either be a nun, or I can get married,” and a lot of women will say, “Well, that’s not much of a choice!” But they didn’t have the kinds of options that women have today.

So when we look at Paul talking about slaves and masters, he doesn’t say, “Masters, you have to free your slaves,” or “Slaves, you should be free of your masters,” because your personal life circumstances are not a hindrance to your salvation unless there’s something inherently evil or sinful about your life; then you have to leave it. But otherwise, for most of us, our salvation is achieved where we are, within those circumstances that we find ourselves. So this is the reason why he’s emphasizing this, not because he thought that women were automatically saved just by making babies.

The raising of children was the primary responsibility and actually pretty much the only thing that women did for most of human history. So she’s not being saved because she’s a mother. If she’s a terrible mother, if she’s a neglectful mother, if she’s a lousy mother—that doesn’t work towards her salvation, just because she made a baby! That would work toward her condemnation, right? But if she is a good mother, she could become a better person—but this is true for fathers as well.

At any rate, let’s take a look at what Chrysostom says about this. This is St. John Chrysostom’s Homily IX on 1 Timothy.

See how many questions are involved in this matter. The woman, he says, being deceived, was in the transgression. What woman? Eve. Shall she then be saved by childbearing? He does not say that, but the race of women shall be saved. Was it not then involved in the transgression? Yes, it was. Still, Eve transgressed, but the whole sex shall be saved notwithstanding, by childbearing. Why not by their own personal virtue? Has she excluded others from this salvation? And what of the case of virgins, of widows who have lost their husbands before they had children, of those who cannot have children? Will they perish? Is there no hope for them? And virgins are held in the highest estimation. Then what does he mean?

So notice that Chrysostom takes note of the fact that the Church has really prized virginity and the celibate life, the monastic life. So what does this mean, that women chose to be nuns that they can’t be saved because they didn’t produce children? Obviously that’s not the case, and this is what he’s working toward. So, continuing with Chrysostom here:

God has given her no small consolation: that of childbearing. And if it is said that this is of nature, so that is also of nature. But the bringing up of children, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness and sobriety, this means that they will have no small reward.

So notice that Paul said, “She will be saved by childbearing if she continues in this way,” if she lives a virtuous life, because she transforms the lives of her children. She impacts the next generation.

By this means (this is Chrysostom), they will have no small reward on their account, because they have trained up wrestlers for the service of Christ. By holiness, he means good life, modesty, sobriety. This is a faithful saying.

Now, that is chapter three, verse one. Of course, when Chrysostom is preaching, there was no such thing as chapters and verse divisions. So he says that that affirmation of Paul is for what he just said: “This is a faithful saying,” rather than what comes after, because immediately what follows after that is a discussion about bishops. So this is Chrysostom:

This is a faithful saying. This relates to the present subject (that is, about women), not to what follows respecting the office of the bishop. For, as it was doubted (that women can be saved through the raising of children), he affirms it to be a true saying, that fathers may be benefitted by the virtue of their children, and mothers also, when they have brought them up well.

So it’s not just women who are saved by childbearing, but fathers also, by their lives, by their raising, their contributing virtue to their children.

But what if she herself has been addicted to wickedness and vice? Will she then be benefited by the bringing up of children? Is it not probable that she will bring them up to be like herself? It is not therefore any woman, but the virtuous woman, who will see the great reward for this.

Hear this, you fathers and mothers, that your bringing up of children will not lose its reward. Among other commendations he reckons this one, for it is no light praise to devote to God those children which are given them from God. For if the basis, the foundation which they lay, is good, great will be their reward; as great if they neglect it will be their punishment.

So that’s an easy question to answer. A woman is saved by childbearing not simply by making babies, as if that’s the only function of a woman, or because that’s all she has to do is to give birth to them, but recognizing that the life of most women is involved heavily in the raising of children, that this is how she is also to achieve her salvation: through her devotion to them as a wife, as a mother. So Chrysostom is clear: we’re not saved by having children, but by raising them well. And that’s very important.

This is, as everybody recognizes, the most difficult thing you can do. The most important thing we can do in our lives, those of us who are parents, we can create a good foundation for our children, send them off into the world to be good spouses, good citizens, good Christians, or we can destroy them, and it doesn’t take a lot. We can abuse a child. You can neglect them, destroy them spiritually, psychologically, emotionally. They can become crippled, they can become disturbed by the way a parent treats them.

All of us, I think, when we became a parent for the first time, and you remember looking at this little baby and realizing that your life is now going to be different; it’s never going to be the same, because we have now been entrusted with this helpless human being, and what that person becomes has a lot to do with what we do in our life. He’s not talking here of course about spoiling our children—that is also a sin—but he’s talking about raising them up properly. When you become a parent, you can either become a better person, or you can become a neglectful parent. So it’s very difficult, because you have to learn unselfishness. When the baby cries, it doesn’t care that you’re tired, that you’re sick, that you’ve got a test in the morning, that you’ve got a paper due, or that you have to go to work in the morning—they don’t care, and you have to rise to the occasion of putting yourself second and your child first. And most parents do that, but some of them don’t, and they become too self-centered, too selfish, unwilling to make sacrifices for their children. They’re addicted to drugs and alcohol, so they really do not care for their children the way they’re supposed to.

So what Chrysostom is saying is that we will be judged on how we behave as parents. We won’t be judged on what our children do, but what we do to try to raise our children right. What they choose to do in their life, that’s up to them; we don’t have control over that. But we will be judged on how we are as a spouse, as a son or daughter, as parents, as citizens. Every facet of our life has the potential either to transform us into becoming a better person or to work toward our condemnation.

That was a pretty easy response to that question about childbearing. Now let’s get to the harder part, and that is about women being silent. Let’s take a look at the first part of that passage, of 1 Timothy 2:8-12. Let’s just go straight to the verses in question, 11-12: “Let a woman learn in silence, with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over men. She is to keep silent.”

So what do we do with that one? We don’t want to hear that we should be submissive and that we should be silent. No one likes to be told what to do. Speaking of children, one of the things that was very interesting for me as a parent was watching my son’s development. Little babies, they can’t sin; brand-new infants, they don’t know what’s going on. But they get older, and they become aware of things. Around the age of one, I noticed that Christopher, our son, was exerting and exercising his self-will. I would say, “Don’t touch that. Don’t go there. Don’t do that,” and he would look at me as he went to reach for the object he wasn’t supposed to have. And I thought: Isn’t that amazing? At that young age, we begin to see the self-will emerge.

So God made all of us with free will, and that’s a good thing, so that we have the ability to choose him, to choose to do good, but our free will was distorted in the Fall, and we have to work very hard to exercise self-control to conform our will to the will of God. This is what Jesus Christ did. But this is something for all people; not just for women, but all people. So the requirement that women be submissive and silent—which is also a virtue, by the way—you can look at it in a way as being something which gives us a little bit of a head start, because we do have to be quiet a lot when really we would like to say something, and a lot of times we don’t. So obedience is the most important virtue; obedience and humility are among the most important virtues, and so is silence, especially in the monastic life.

But I’m very sensitive about this part of the Bible, not simply because of my job, but because of how passages like this have been used to abuse, misuse, subjugate women, to propagate or perpetuate sexism and to justify, really, male domination of women. But the point here is not that men are not allowed to dominate women, but that women should choose a life of virtue. So just as the husband must submit himself to God, we’re also supposed to submit to God and also to our husbands. So the passage in Ephesians begins, “Submit yourselves to one another out of reverence to Christ.” Again, this is not a virtue which is only for women, that means that women have to be quiet and submissive, and men can do whatever they want. That’s really a distortion of what St. Paul is trying to say.

Why do we react to it so negatively? Because when we hear a call to submit ourselves, it kind of goes against our Western notions of equality, of freedom, of independence. Women today are in the workplace; we expect equality. We expect respect in the workplace, in the government, in the public sphere. We don’t want to be harassed. We don’t want to be objectified. And the fact is that this has been a real problem for women. Women have been treated—mistreated—for centuries. There’s no question about this. There isn’t a woman alive who hasn’t experienced this, unless she grew up—unless she was dropped off as an infant—in a convent, and never had anything to do with men, every single woman has experienced the kind of treatment by men that women are really revolting against today in the so-called “me too” movement. Men have been in a position of control over women, and we’re kind of fed up with it—the innuendos, the leering looks, the unsolicited comments—but we’re not talking about that here.

We have to separate that kind of reaction that we have to that passage because it seems to suggest that we should just be quiet, put up with whatever men do. That is not what Paul is saying. Obviously, to engage in sexism and to abuse women, to take advantage of women—or men—is a sin. So Paul is not encouraging that here. He would be quite horrified. And here we’re not talking about the workplace, we’re not talking about society: we’re talking about the home, relationships with husbands, and also the Church. So this is not the general culture.

So how are we going to understand this passage? How do we interpret this passage in an Orthodox way? Not a Protestant way, not as a fundamentalist, because there’s kind of a trend among some Protestants to talk a lot about the husband as the servant-leader of the home, and I’ve seen some programs where women say, “Well, my husband makes all the decisions, and I just go along with whatever he wants,” that she is extremely passive and that he makes all of the decisions because he is basically the boss. This is how they are interpreting this passage.

A lot of people—this is mostly in the Protestant world; I haven’t really seen this in the Orthodox world—think that this is pleasing to God, that a woman is supposed to be passive—and I don’t think that’s what Paul had in mind, nor did St. John Chrysostom, because what we want here is a strong marriage, an effective marriage, a partnership, and each one defers to the other on different things. Each one supports the other, whatever is necessary at the moment. Anybody who’s been married for a long time understands this, that there are times when the one is tired and fed up and really wants to quit and the other one says, “No, we’ve got to keep on going,” and then the opposite spouse is the one who needs a little bit of support and a little bit of encouragement. Sometimes there are certain chores that are done by the one spouse, but that spouse cannot do it for whatever reason—too much work, illness, whatever—and then the other spouse steps up to help bear the load. That’s what marriage is about. It is a partnership. There’s no question that Paul understood this.

Do you remember when the disciples were arguing with each other about which one was the greatest among them? The Lord took them aside and said, “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, but it shall not be so with you.” And then he went on to say that he came not to be served but to serve. So the Lord was the example par excellence of submission to the will of God and of service in humility. So if this is the case with men, it is certainly the case with women also, and this is the case in a marriage as well.

What often happens at this point? Well, men—Orthodox men, and sometimes priest—say, “You’re supposed to be like the Theotokos.” She was quiet, right? Everybody thinks the Theotokos was just quiet and submissive, and she kind of was in a corner all the time, praying and just being submissive. That’s what she did best, right? Because when we first meet her, she’s 15 or 16 years old, when the Angel Gabriel announces the good news of salvation, that she would become the mother of the Messiah. So we have this image of this very young Virgin Mary, who is very quiet and submissive.

But what about the wedding of Cana? What about the wedding at Cana? There she was assertive, wasn’t she? Are you going to deny that she was assertive? She wasn’t silent. Somebody needed help. There was no wine. So she said to Jesus, “They have no wine,” and he said, “What is this to do with us? What have you to do with me, woman? My hour is not yet come.” She says, “This is a big problem. This is a wedding, and they have no wine.” So here he was really saying, “I can’t get involved in this. I’m not ready to begin my public ministry.” She did not take no for an answer! She brought the servants over and said, “Do whatever he says.” That’s kind of pushy! That’s being assertive.

So we are not always called to be silent and submissive. We have to be intelligent about it, we have to be prayerful about it, we have to be spiritual about it.

If this is the case, then, why is the headship of the man so important in the home? Because of course this is what is given to him in Genesis and the statements of Paul, that man is the head of the house, he is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, and this kind of thing. Why? Why is that the case? Because women are so dominant in the home. Women dominate the home; there’s no doubt about that. Everything revolves around us. We set the tone. We decide what will happen. We run the ship. “Mom, Mom, Mom! Mom, where’s my notebook? Mom, I need help with my project! Mom, where’d you put my backpack? Mom, can you drive me to practice? Mom, I’m not feeling well.” And the same thing with husbands: “Honey, where did you put my keys, my briefcase?” They never say, “Where did I leave my…?” It’s always: “Where did you put my… keys, my briefcase, my new pair of pants, my shoes?” Whatever it is.

We are the ones who make the house a home. We are the ones that the house really revolves around—the wife, the mom—as a fulcrum. The truth is that men, just as women’s roles have changed in the last 50 or 60 years, men’s roles have changed also. Men are much more involved in helping with the house, with childcare, than they ever were before, but still, women, even when they work full-time outside of the home, do most of the child-rearing and most of the work in the home. That has been proven time and again by studies. This means that the wife is really the dominant force in the home.

So what does this have to do with the husband being the head? Well, it has to do with the fact that if he was not given the headship, what would be left for him in the home? You see, this provides a kind of balance in the home, and it’s important that women honor their husbands, respect their husbands, because the husbands can really get lost, especially among the children. This is a real danger in a lot of marriages, that once the children come along the couple forgets about each other and meeting the needs of each other and caring about each other, and the children become the focus. Then sometimes the wife doesn’t feel like she has any time for her husband, and the husband gets neglected. So it’s very, very important that we create a balance in the home. This is really the sort of practical reason why the headship of the husband is important, because without it there would be really nothing for him, practically nothing for him to do. There would be no balance at all.

That’s how I see it, but I do have a comment; I have St. John Chrysostom’s impression. When the Scriptures speak about the importance of women being submissive, is it to make them like slaves? Of course not. It’s to keep some balance in the home. This idea does not come from me; it’s from St. John Chrysostom, who talks about this. But we have reached the bottom of the hour, so let us take a little break, and when we come back we will see what Chrysostom says about the husband being the head and what it means that the wife must… in terms of the relationship. So join me after the break.

There’s a couple of places in the epistles of Paul in which he talks about women being silent and the relationship between husband and wife. We talked about this somewhat in Ephesians, but we also see this in Corinthians, and here in 1 Timothy. So this is St. John Chrysostom speaking about this relationship of head, that Christ is the head of the husband, that the head of Christ is God, etc. So the question is: What does this mean? Does this mean rule and subjection? This is the question, and it’s very interesting, because he is saying that this suggests equality. It’s very interesting.

So this is Homily XXVI by St. John Chrysostom, on 1 Corinthians.

But the head of the woman is the man, the head of Christ is God. Here the heretics rush upon us with a certain declaration of inferiority…

He’s speaking of the Arians, I’m sure.

...which out of these words they contrive against the Son, but they stumble against themselves. Because the head is of the same substance with the body, and the head of Christ is God, the Son is therefore the same substance as the Father.

He’s saying here that that statement actually affirms their equality, not suggesting subjection. Then he goes and turns to the discussion of husband and wife.

For if Paul had meant to speak of rule and subjection, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but of a slave and of a master. For what if the wife is under subjection to us? It is as a wife, free and equal in honor. And the Son also, though he did become obedient to the Father, it was as the Son of God; it was as God.

So Paul is saying and St. John Chrysostom interprets this passage not as suggesting a kind of subjection or meaning an inequality. Well, then, how can she be equal and still be expected to be submissive? How can the husband be the head and yet we say they are equal? To think in this way—because this is the normal reaction, especially in our culture today—we’re thinking in the ways of the world. Well, once you say, “She’s submissive, she’s not equal to the man, she’s not equal to the husband,” but the Christian faith is full of paradox, full of mystery. Paul just said [and] you heard Chrysostom talk about how the head of Christ is God; does this mean that they’re not equal, that the Son is not equal to the Father? Of course not.

So headship does not necessarily mean that there is an inequality of the two of them. So St. Paul called marriage a mystery and compared it to Christ and the Church, and Christ is the head of the Church [which] is [the] body. He used the image of body in other places. When St. Paul talks about the image of the body, his point is to say that you don’t have a part of the body that’s more important than another. The leg doesn’t say to the eye, “I don’t need you.” Would you prefer to have your sight or to have your hand? Would you prefer to have a kidney or to have your foot? So there’s no such thing as parts of the body being greater or more important. They have a different function, but they are equal and equally important.

Let’s turn again to the first part of this passage. “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.” What did Paul mean, that women must keep silent? “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over men?” Didn’t Paul have female co-workers? Yes, he did, and this is why some people say, “Well, Paul did not write this. Somebody inserted it later when they were trying to subjugate women.” But he says something similar elsewhere; he says it in Corinthians. So we cannot say that Paul did not write this or that this reflects something that Paul would never have said. But then what about the places where St. Paul says that “in Christ there is neither male nor female, nor slave nor free, nor Jew nor Greek”? How are we to interpret this verse?

I would say there are three alternative ways to interpret this verse. We can try to interpret it very literally—and there are some Christians who do; there’s a kind of fundamentalist interpretation, a literalist interpretation. It means exactly what it says: women have to shut up. The men are to do all the talking and all the teaching. And there are some Protestant and other kinds of sects which believe exactly that, and they demand the silence of women and complete exclusion from any role in the Church. Some Baptists and certainly the Mormons: women cannot be ordained, because they have to be silent in church, right? So you have the super-conservative kind of fundamentalist, literal interpretation.

Then you could have a liberal interpretation, which is the opposite, in which people say, “Well, this means nothing. We can ignore this completely, because that statement was given by Paul because of the culture. Women didn’t have leadership positions, and this doesn’t apply today.” And that is the reason why many Christian denominations have female priests today, female pastors and female priests: the whole Episcopal Church, the Anglican tradition. They have female priests and female bishops.

So you have two extremes there. You have the super-conservative, fundamentalist, kind of literal interpretation; then you have one that wants to just throw the whole thing out the window and ignore it completely. But we cannot ignore the Scriptures, so what do we do? There’s that middle way; that’s the Orthodox way. So the Orthodox view, we would disagree with both of those positions, because actually those are based on a distortion of the Scriptures and the opinions of human beings.

We would base our interpretation on what the Scripture itself says and the Tradition of the Church. Let’s take a look at the Scripture. Let’s interpret it based on what the Scriptures themselves say. Let’s start with context and purpose. What was the context in which the statement was made? What was the purpose with which the statement was made? Paul was talking about women being silent. He says that here and he says it in 1 Corinthians. Why does he say it? In which context does this come up? In the context of prayer and worship services.

He’s not talking about the general role of women in the Church. He’s talking about how they should behave in worship services. He’s not giving a rule about female roles in the Church. So we have to be very careful. You see how I am about to explain to you, and I will back it up with Chrysostom, that it does not mean that women have to be silent in church. That seems to be the obvious reading, that’s the literal reading, that seems to be the easiest reading, and this is why women have been really silenced—literally silenced—in history. But Chrysostom doesn’t even agree with this. Why? Because Chrysostom interprets this passage according to its context.

I want you to be careful and think about this before I explain to you why Chrysostom doesn’t think this means that women have to be silent. I want you to realize what happens in many places and happened many times in Paul’s communities. Paul would say something, and then people would distort what he said or misunderstand what he said. They would overexaggerate what he said. So, for example, St. Paul said to the Corinthians, “We have freedom in Christ,” and so they said, “That’s great. I’m going to go visit a prostitute,” or “I’m going to eat meat which had been offered to idols.” They were saying this: “All things are lawful to me,” and Paul replies, “Not all things are helpful.” So you see that many things that St. Paul would say were misunderstood because people were listening to him and absorbing his words in a worldly fashion, according to the mind, the phronema, of the world, not the phronema of Christ.

Let’s take another example; let’s have another example. He said to the Thessalonians that the Lord was coming back very soon, so some of them stopped working. So he had to write the epistle of 2 Thessalonians, because some of them stopped working completely and were just a burden on the community; they were freeloading off of everyone else. This is not what Paul was saying: Since Jesus is coming back right away, you should stop working, don’t worry about it. When we are trying to determine what Paul meant, we have to look at other passages by St. Paul in which he discusses something similar and the totality of the scriptural witness.

Let’s take another example. The famous Matthew 16:16, when St. Peter says, “You are the Messiah, the Son of God,” and Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Peter, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you but my Father who is in heaven. You are Rock (Petros) and upon this rock (petra), I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” If you ask a Catholic what that means, it is very obvious: The Church is founded on St. Peter; St. Peter is the foundation of the Church, because Jesus said, “You are Peter; you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church”—but what was the context? How do we interpret that correctly? We look at how the word petra is used elsewhere in the Bible, and it’s always referring to God and to Jesus Christ. And we look at the history of Church; we look at the apostolic Tradition, and nowhere in the apostolic Tradition, nowhere in the early Church does anybody say that the Church is founded on St. Peter. That comes about much later, when the popes are trying to establish a kind of papal primacy that was a distortion of the “first among equals” primacy that they had in the early Church. There was an equality among the bishops in the early Church. So when we look at the scriptural witness and the apostolic Tradition, we arrive at the right answer. This is what I’m trying to tell you.

We don’t just react to the first impression we have of the verse. When he says, “Women must be silent. I do not permit a woman to teach,” we don’t just react and say, “Well, it’s obvious. Look at it. It’s black and white there. Women have to be silent, and they cannot teach.” Let’s see what the Tradition and the scriptural witness say about women and St. Paul.

What do we know about St. Paul’s attitudes towards women? They were his co-workers. There were female deacons like Phoebe. And by the way, they’re not called “deaconess”; they are deacons, diakonos. She’s not the wife of a deacon; she’s not a “deaconette,” she’s not deacon “lite”: she’s a deacon; her name is Phoebe. We meet her in Romans 16:1. And then, also in Romans 1, St. Paul mentions a female apostle, Junia! Remember that the term “apostle” was not limited to the Twelve. Today when we say Apostles, we mean the Twelve, but there were female apostles. He mentions many women in chapter 16 of Romans: Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Prisca the wife of Aquila.

Priscilla and Aquila are often mentioned in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters. So she is very important; Priscilla is very important. St. John Chrysostom said—because he was very struck by the fact that her name is always mentioned first. It’s always Priscilla and Aquila, Priscilla and Aquila; it’s never Aquila and Priscilla. And Chrysostom said it’s because she was the more important one; she was the teacher; she was the one that Paul relied on the most. Chrysostom said this. And the book of Acts describes Priscilla as teaching Apollos, who himself became a very important Christian preacher and teacher and leader.

Let’s take a look at this other passage in which Paul talks about women being silent in church. This is 1 Corinthians 14:33-36. First of all, we’ll go back to 26. He says that

When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at most three, and each in turn, and let each one interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each one keep silence in church, speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, then let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one so all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

He’s about to say that women must keep silent in church, but notice the context in which this was said. I just read it for you. “When you come together, everyone offers a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation, but everything has to be done orderly.” Everybody has to take a turn, and when one person is speaking, everybody else has to be quiet. And listen: that is the context in which this is being said. As we continue:

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, even as the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Then he continues, and he says:

All things should be done decently and in order.

So what does this mean? He just finished saying! Look at the context, brothers and sisters. He just finished saying that everybody speaks, everyone prophesizes. By the way, earlier in 1 Corinthians, he says that when a woman prophesizes or prays in church, she should cover her head. Remember that passage, a very famous passage? And we know that Philip had four daughters, all of whom were prophets? So women were active in the worship services of the Church, so why does Paul say for them not to speak?

He’s not saying that they have no role, they have to be silent at all times; he’s instructing them about order in the worship service. There’s a lot, a big section of 1 Corinthians [which] is about having reverence and order in the worship service. That’s very important. Everybody has to take their turn, and when somebody’s speaking the others are supposed to be quiet.

Let’s see what St. John Chrysostom says about this. This is actually his Homily IX on 1 Timothy.

Great modesty and great propriety does the blessed Paul require of women, and that not only with respect to their dress and appearance; he proceeds even to regulate their speech. And what does he say? Let the woman learn in silence; that is, let her not speak in the church, which rule he has also given in his epistle to the Corinthians, where he says it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

We just read that passage.

And the reason is that the Law has made them subject to men, and again, if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. Then indeed the women, from such teaching, kept silence.

He’s about to talk about how things were better in Paul’s time. I don’t think so, because Paul is telling the women to be silent because they’re talking. Now we’re about to hear Chrysostom complaining about his congregation. Listen to this.

But now there is apt to be great noise among them, much clamor and much talking, and nowhere so much as in this place. For they may all be seen here, talking more than in the market or at the bath. For, as if they came here for recreation, they are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is confusion, and they seem not to understand that unless they are quiet, they cannot learn anything that is useful. For when our discourse—

He’s talking about his sermon.

—strains against the talking, then no one pays attention to what is said. What good can it do to them? To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed to speak, not only about worldly matters, but even about spiritual things in the church. This is order, this is modesty, this will adorn her more than any garments.

“But I do not permit a woman to teach.” (He’s quoting Paul.) “I do not permit,” he says. What place does this command have here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness, propriety, and modesty. So having said that he wished them not to speak in church, to cut off all occasion for conversation, he says, “Let them not teach,” but occupy the station of learners, for thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative.

[Laughter] That’s true! Chrysostom’s understanding of this passage, that the women must be silent, here in 1 Timothy but also in 1 Corinthians, is that women must keep silent because we’re talking in church! The church services were going on, and they were carrying on little conversations. He’s right. This is the simplest interpretation, and that is what is meant by it. Chrysostom has come to this conclusion himself.

What does he say about 1 Corinthians? This is Chrysostom’s Homily XXXVII on 1 Corinthians and the statement “Let women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak.” Here again, remember the context, because Chrysostom is drawing his conclusion, not on his opinion but on the context in which these statements are made, and that is worship services and women talking during services, because, let’s face it, we talk a lot, and men get annoyed with that, as right they should. Have you ever been in church and tried to listen to a sermon when someone nearby is talking, even if they’re whispering and trying to be quiet? There is nothing more annoying. Or a baby is crying and the parent is trying to quiet it: we don’t really want to tell people, “You know, you should really take your baby outside and quiet your baby,” the baby is crying and crying: it’s impossible to pay attention to the sermon or the reading when people are talking.

This was happening in Paul’s congregation, not only in Chrysostom’s congregation, but Chrysostom has also experienced this, that while he’s preaching, people are talking. That means that they cannot learn. Why is he talking about them learning? Because women generally were not teachers, and women were not educated. Women were rarely educated, because it was considered a waste. Why would you educate a woman? She’s not going to go out and have a job; she’s not going to have a career; she’s not going to be an orator, a rhetor; she’s not going to be a teacher; she’s going to be in the home. So women were generally not educated. This is what he is saying: Let her learn quietly. You can’t learn if you’re talking. We all feel this way, right? I feel this way when I am teaching. If somebody’s talking in class or texting, they’re not learning.

Here’s Homily XXXVII on 1 Corinthians, on the statement, “Let your women keep silent in the churches.” This is St. John Chrysostom.

Having abated the disturbance both from tongues and from prophesizing, having made a law to prevent confusion, that they who speak in tongues should do this in turn…

Notice that he’s noting the context.

...the prophecy should be silent when another begins. He next in course proceeds to the disorder which arose from the women, cutting off their unseasonable boldness of speech. For if to them that have the gifts are not permitted to speak inconsiderately nor whenever they will, even if they are moved by the Spirit, much less those women who prate idly and to no purpose. Therefore he represses their babbling with much authority, and, taking the law along with him, he sews up their mouths, not simply exhorting here or giving counsel, but laying his commands on them, vehemently, by recitation of an ancient law on that subject.

Do you see the wisdom of Paul? What kind of testimony he induced? One that not only enjoins upon them silence, but silence with fear, as with a great fear as where a maidservant ought to keep herself quiet. Wherefore also having himself said, “It is not permitted for them to speak,” he added not “but to be silent,” but instead of being silent, he set down what is more, that is, “to be in subjection.” And if this is so in respect to husbands, much more so in respect of teachers and of fathers and the general assembly of the Church.

In other words, they must control themselves. They must be quiet. They must subject themselves. All of us have to, at times, subject ourselves. We subject ourselves to our superiors, whether they’re the clergy or whether they’re our bosses in the workplace, we have to know when to take our place. When we’re in church, we’re not supposed to talk.

But if they are not even to speak nor ask a question, then why are they present?

He’s offering a question that somebody might say.

That they might hear what they ought. But the points which are questioned, let them learn at home from their husbands. So he adds, if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.

Thus not only are they not allowed to speak at random, but not even ask a question in church. So if the priest, or here it would be Chrysostom, is preaching, and they don’t understand what he’s saying, they’re not supposed to say to their husband, “I didn’t understand. What did he mean by that?” They’re supposed to be quiet and ask at home, because their question disturbs the entire congregation.

Now (this is Chrysostom) if they ought not ask questions, much more is their speaking at pleasure contrary to law.

In other words, carrying on a conversation.

And what may be the cause of this, of his setting them under such great subjection? Because the woman is in some sort a weaker being and easily carried away and light-minded.

[Laughter] So here you see… This is Chrysostom. This is a fourth-century man talking about women. They’re weaker and they’re light-minded. I know one thing: we’re very chatty. We do like to talk—there’s no question about that—when we annoy men significantly. So here’s Chrysostom:

This is why he set over them their husbands as teachers, for the benefit of both. For so he both rendered the women orderly and the husbands he made anxious so as to deliver to their wives exactly what they heard.

So he’s saying this causes the husbands to pay more attention in church so that he can explain it later to his wife. And as Chrysostom continues, he says:

Then, as in brief summary, setting all things right, he adds the words (he’s referring to St. Paul; St. Paul adds the words): “Let all things be done decently and in order.”

So Chrysostom has settled for us what St. Paul meant by women remaining silent, that is, not to have conversations in church, not even to ask a question of their husband. This is very consistent with the life of St. Paul. It’s consistent with the Tradition of the Church. It’s consistent with everything else we see, in the book of Acts, in the epistles of Paul, that men and women would prophesy, speak a word of encouragement, give a revelation, as long as it was done reverently and in order, and that others were silent when they were speaking.

We’re going to stop here; we’re at the top of the hour. So we’ve talked about speaking in church. Now we have to turn our attention to our teaching. There’s a very important word here in 1 Timothy 2, when he writes, “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men.” So what’s that about? Am I out of order here, teaching you if any of you are men? Let’s see what he means by that, and we’ll find out after the break.

We are discussing the statement by St. Paul, 1 Timothy 2:12: “For I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over men.” Some of you, by the way, if you don’t want to call in, because some of you are shy or maybe you don’t want to be on the air live with us, you can present your questions in the chatroom, and we do have a question from Sonia in the chatroom, and that is: “What if the husband is not knowledgeable in the faith?” Well, we’re going to answer that question, and St. John Chrysostom is going to answer the question. He doesn’t leave all the teaching to the husband, and that women are just supposed to learn, because sometimes a wife knows more than a husband. She’s supposed to teach him. Sometimes that is the case. But the presumption was in those days, because women are not educated—today women receive equal education as men. As a matter of fact, more women now attend college than men. The majority of people at universities today is women; it has flipped. It used to be that women, to be educated was a rare thing. When I went to law school—this was in the early ‘80s—about 30% at the most of the class was women. Today, now, most of the students in law schools are women; they make the majority, and that’s a big change in a short period of time.

When Paul was saying, “Let them ask their husbands at home,” it’s because the women, by talking and asking their husband a question during the church service, it was disruptive for everyone. But that doesn’t mean that today all a woman can do is ask her husband. She can find out herself, or she might teach him, or she can find out from other sources. She can ask the priest. She isn’t limited or restricted to learning from her husband. It’s great if he knows and he can help her and they can discuss these things, but that’s not a limitation. Don’t assume these gender roles, because there is no such thing. When Paul says, “There’s neither male nor female,” that means there is equality in the Church, so we all learn from each other, not the women can only learn from their husbands, but that if she doesn’t understand something in church, she’s not supposed to talk to him about it in church. The assumption was that she would ask him, not him her, because women were not educated. Let’s be careful not to take these things in such a literal manner—“Oh, I just have to ask my husband; I can’t ask anyone else.” But as I mentioned, Chrysostom is even going to talk about this.

Let’s look at the historical context when Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over men.” As we mentioned, St. Paul had many female co-workers. We mentioned Phoebe and Priscilla and Junia and others, but in addition to this—and Mary and Tryphosa and these others that he mentions in Romans—we have so many female apostles—Photini and Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna: we just a couple weeks ago had the Sunday of the Holy Myrrh-bearers. Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus: they went out preaching. All of these women became evangelists and preachers and teachers. St. Thekla who was a famous disciple and helper of St. Paul: a preacher and a teacher. St. Nina, the Enlightener of Georgia: the Gospel was brought to the country of Georgia by a woman, and that was in the fourth century. St. Nina, she’s considered equal to the apostles.

Clearly, it cannot mean that women cannot teach or women cannot teach men, they can only teach children and other women. That is not the Tradition of the Church. Women have been evangelists and preachers and teachers from the beginning, and they still are. We still have female readers and chanters in the Church. That’s part of the Orthodox tradition. I am a tonsured reader. That is part of the Orthodox tradition, to allow women to read and chant in church, not just nuns. We have female theologians, lay theologians, who also can preach in church with the permission of the bishop. And why is this? Because the point of the passage is not to silence all women, but to silence conversation in the church, something which women are particularly prone to do. This has been proven… Of course, Chrysostom has this very problem. We just tend to be very chatty. We tend to open up conversations. We talk too much! That’s our problem. [Laughter] Here, it helps me a little bit with the program that I’m talking a lot, but this is very different.

Our tradition of allowing women theologians and women to preach in church, which is the Orthodox tradition, although not everybody allows it—the Antiochians, the Greeks, not so much the Russians, but the idea of allowing a woman who is a lay theologian, with the permission of the bishop— By the way, not just women, but men. Preaching in church is not a priestly function. Just because you’re ordained a priest does not mean you have the right to preach in church, because if you do not have a theological education—and there are priests who do not—you are not to preach in church. Preaching is a teaching function, and it requires a person who has been trained as an Orthodox theologian. If you have an Orthodox degree and you have the permission of the bishop, you can preach in church, even if you’re a man and not a priest, or if you are a woman. But it requires the permission of the bishop.

Why does this passage seem to suggest that women cannot teach? Because it’s speaking about usurping the authority of the episcopacy. I’m going to show you this not only in our analysis of the verse but also by what [St. Paul] himself says. “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.” “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men.” “She is to keep silent.” And after this he begins to talk about the role of the bishop. So what is the context of the statement? First of all, St. Paul is talking about order and reverence in the church and then the role of the bishop. So they key word here is “I do not allow her to have authority over.” Let’s take a look at this word, because I was surprised by this. I never really analyzed this verse.

He says, “Oude aftentein andros, to have authority over a man.” It’s the word aftenteio, have authority over. That’s not the usual word for “authority,” which is exousia, like when Jesus sends out the disciples, he says, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me,” it’s the word exousia. This is a different word. It’s a very particular word, and it means to have sovereign authority over, and this word is used for God and people like apostles and evangelists, and it also means to possess authority over, to act on one’s authority, to play the despot, and to be primarily responsible for.

So here it seems that he is saying that women cannot act or speak in the church with the authority like a bishop, usurping, we can say, the authority of the priest or the bishop. This is because the teaching authority in the Church belongs to the bishop. If you ever go to see the ordination of a bishop, you will see that before the ordination service begins, the man is brought forward and he recites the Creed. That’s because he is responsible for preserving correct doctrine. That’s the responsibility of the bishop. That doesn’t mean that the rest of us can be heretics, nor does it mean that no bishops have ever been heretics, but that’s the role of the bishop: to preserve the apostolic faith.

Now, the priest likewise has that function in the Church because he receives that permission and that authority from his bishop. A priest can do nothing in the Church—not a sacrament, not a service—without the permission of the bishop. So that’s the authority that they have. The priest only preaches in the church with the permission of the bishop. I saw this when we were in Cyprus. Fr. Costas spent a few months in Cyprus, and the bishop said to him, “Of course you should preach, because you are a theologian.” He’s not a theologian because he’s a priest, but because he has an advanced theological degree. Most of the priests there in Cyprus were not preaching, because they don’t have a theological degree; they have a two-year kind of a trade school kind of a degree, where they learn how to do the services, but they don’t know theology, so they don’t preach.

A lay person like myself can preach in the church with the permission of the bishop, but the role of the teacher in the Church is a very sacred responsibility, and only people with the proper training and knowledge are given that kind of permission. This is why we don’t have eulogies—or we shouldn’t; sometimes this still happens in Orthodox churches—but you see movies where somebody gets up in the church at a funeral and offers a eulogy and we kind of think that we should do that in the Orthodox Church—it’s forbidden! Laypeople can’t just get up and just talk. They can do that in the hall, at the lunch after or something like this, in a home, but you cannot in a service get up and speak as a layperson, without an Orthodox degree, without the authority of the bishop, the permission of the bishop.

That’s because of this word, afthenteia, afthenteio. As a noun, this is what this means: absolute sway, sovereign power, supreme authority. So Paul says, “I do not permit these of a woman.” Of course! Because women were not priests, and women were not bishops. What else does afthenteia mean? The supreme authority of the Church: in councils and in canons, in apostolic and the patristic Tradition, of apostles and bishops, civil authority, kingly and imperial authority. Number three, afthenteia means: authority, not necessarily absolute, but in monastic rule, in priestly jurisdiction. And then, in a negative sense, you cannot have afthenteia in tyranny, high-handedness, irresponsibility, private notion, personal view—none of those are allowed for anyone who is a layperson. Do you notice that it’s about exercising authority in a manner which is not appropriate? The only exception here for a woman is monastic rule.

Where did I get this from? Did I just pull it out of my head? It’s a very useful source. It’s called Lampe[‘s] Patristic Lexicon. This is how this word was understood by the Fathers of the Church. We have lexicons, and we have books where we can look up how the Fathers understood these words, and this is where I got it from.

So women cannot be bishops so they can never have this kind of authority in the Church. So when Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have afthenteia, absolute authority,” he does not mean that he does not allow a woman to teach at all, because obviously they were doing that in the early Church; they’ve always been doing that. It means that they cannot assume the kind of absolute authority which is found only in a bishop, Church councils and canons, and things like this. But I’m telling you that that kind of authority would be the case for any layperson, man or a woman, and the only exception that I could see would be in a monastery: the abbess of a female monastery, a convent, has that kind of absolute authority. So abbesses have that authority, but normally women would not have this.

So how do we know this is what Chrysostom means by this? Interestingly, he makes the same point. Believe me, I’m always happy to come to a conclusion and find that Chrysostom said the same thing! [Laughter] I’m really happy about that. So here’s Chrysostom’s Homily XXXVI on 1 Corinthians. By the way, here’s again the idea of being quiet in church. This is Chrysostom:

Allow me also to say of those who make a disturbance and hold conversations in this place (the church): Don’t you have houses in which to discuss these things, or do you despise the church of God and corrupt those who would be modest and quiet? I do not forbid conversation. Let it be done in the house, the market, or the baths. For the church is not a place of conversation but of teaching.

But it differs not from the market, no! If you wish to learn anything today, if anything is to be bought or sold, the church appears more convenient than the market. For on such subjects also there is more talk here than in the shops themselves. If anyone wishes to hear any scandal, you will find this, too, to be found here more than in the forum. If you wish to hear anything of political matters, of the affairs of private families or the camp, don’t go to the judgment hall, don’t go to the apothecary’s shop, for here is where all things are reported accurately, and our assemblies are anything rather than a church.

Are these things to be endured? Are these things to be accepted? We weary and distract ourselves every day that you do not depart without having learned something useful.

So notice that they’re talking. Can you imagine? Chrysostom was preaching, and people are talking.

What do the multitudes say? I do not hear what is read, says one. I don’t know the words that are spoken.

He’s saying what people would complain about. They can’t hear.

Because you make a tumult and confusion, because you do not come with a reverent soul. For this reason, you ought to pay attention, for if even the obscurity stirs your soul, much more if things were clear! Yet this is the reason why neither all things are clear because you are lazy nor all things are obscure lest you be in despair.

So he says—listen to this:

So you cannot be silent? Well, then go outside, so that you do not become a mischief to others. For in truth there ought to be but one voice in the church always, even as there is one body. Therefore both he that reads, utters his voice alone, and the bishop himself is content to sit in silence, and he who chants, chants alone, though all utter the response, but the voice is offered as if from one mouth. And he that pronounces a homily pronounces it alone, but when there are many conversing on many diverse subjects, why do we disturb you for no good?

In other words, as he’s talking, they’re all talking about other things.

In the midst of our speech on such high matters you should not be conversing about things of no consequence.

Chrysostom also talks about in Romans 16 the women who were co-workers of St. Paul, and this is where we see him talking about the fact that they are not supposed to teach and have authority, and it’s reflecting the office or role of the bishop. Let’s hear this last statement by St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXXI on Romans. Here he’s conversing: he says a lot on the women whom Paul greets in the 16th chapter of Romans. This selection is taken from verse six, where St. Paul says, “Greet Mary, who bestowed much labor on us.” St. John Chrysostom:

How is this? A woman again is honored and proclaimed victorious, and we men are put to shame! But rather we are not only put to shame but even have an honor conferred upon us, for an honor we have in that there are such women amongst us. But we are put to shame in that men are left so far behind them. Let both men and women listen: It is not from bracelets or necklaces or eunuchs or maidservants or gold-embroidered dresses, but from their toils on behalf of the truth, for he says, “Mary bestowed much labor upon us,” that is, not only upon herself nor upon her own advancement, for this many women of the present day do also by fasting and sleeping on the floor, but upon others also, so carrying the race that the apostles and evangelists ran.

Then in what sense does he say, “I do not permit a woman to teach”? He means to hinder her from publicly coming forward from the seat of the vema, not from the word of teaching.

The vema is the raised platform. In an Orthodox church you notice that the altar is the highest place; the sanctuary in the church is the highest place in the church, and the royal doors is the place where the bishop stands, where the priest stands—this is the vema. So this is what Chrysostom is saying now. When he is saying—this is in the context of Romans, but he is thinking back about what St. Paul said: “I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man,” he means from the seat of the vema. A woman can never be a bishop. She can never be a priest. She will never exercise that kind of authority in the Church. But that does not mean she has to be silent all the time, right?

He means to hinder her from coming publicly forward from the seat of the vema, not from the seat of teaching, since, if this were the case, how would he have said to the woman who had an unbelieving husband, “How do you know, woman, if you will save your husband?”

This is what he says in 1 Corinthians 7, so this is the response here to the question that was asked earlier by Sonia in the chatroom. The woman can also teach her husband.

How does he allow her to admonish her children, when he says, “She shall be saved by childbearing if they continue in faith and chastity and holiness and sobriety”? How was it (Chrysostom says) that Priscilla came to instruct Apollos? It was not, then, to prevent private conversing for advantage but that, before all, which it was the teacher’s duty to give in the public assembly, this is the role of the bishop. Or again, in the case the husband is believing and thoroughly furnished to be able to instruct her. But when she is wiser, he does not forbid her from teaching him, from improving him. For he does not say (here in Romans), “Greet Mary who has labored much upon us.” He does not say that Mary taught much, but bestowed much labor, because, along with teaching, she performed many other ministries besides, and those in the way of dangers and the way of money and the way of travels. For women in those days were more spirited than lions, sharing with the apostles their labors for the Gospel’s sake. In this way, they went traveling with them and also performed all other ministries, and even in Christ’s day there were women who followed them, who ministered to them out of their substance and waited upon the Teacher.

There he’s quoting Luke 8:3, in which it talks about the women who accompanied the Lord in his travels and supported the ministry with their own finances.

It’s clear then that from the several selections we’ve read by St. John Chrysostom that he interprets Paul’s words about women remaining silent, whether it’s found in 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy, to refer to women carrying on conversations in church, but not only women; men also: men aren’t allowed to talk in church either, but the fact is usually the women are sort of singled out by St. Paul because this is a problem usually found among women, because we do tend to talk too much. Men were also complaining that they couldn’t understand or hear what was being… Remember, these were big churches, and there were no microphones, and if a woman is talking or anyone is talking in the church, they could not be heard.

St. John Chrysostom does not take the statement from St. Paul, “I do not permit a woman to teach,” to forbid a woman from teaching at all, but that she is not to assume the role of authority from the vema; that the ultimate teaching authority in the Church rests in the bishop. This is why we say in the Divine Liturgy, we pray for our bishop, we say, “Rightly dividing the word of thy truth,” so this is the role of the bishop. He has the ultimate teaching authority. He is the one who is responsible for making sure that the apostolic faith is taught, that the true Orthodox faith is taught and not something else. Of course, this is his ultimate responsibility. If he fails in this, there have been times when the laypeople would remove the bishop or begin to remove the bishop, or other bishops would remove that bishop or they would rebel against this, so it is not only the responsibility, but it is the primary responsibility of the bishop that has traditionally been seen that way because he is the successor of the apostles.

So St. John Chrysostom does not take the statement from St. Paul, “I don’t allow a woman to teach,” to forbid them from teaching at all, but not to assume the role of authority from the vema. That’s spelled B-e-m-a. The vema was the raised platform in the church, the altar area, where the priest and the bishop would show the mantle of authority in the Church.

I hope that answers the question of what is meant by keeping silent. We can see how different this is [from] what we may have anticipated the answer would be, either on a very conservative level on kind of a fundamentalist way—women have to be silent, they have to be submissive and always in subjugation to men, that means they can have no leadership role in the Church, no teaching authority or anything. He’s not saying that at all. But it’s also not the opposite. We don’t ignore what St. Paul said, because there is great spiritual value in it. So we have to remember our place in the Church; we have to remember that St. Paul was very interested in harmony, in the home and in the church.

The Church is always the place of order, always the place of specific roles, because we do not have the same roles in the Church, this does not mean that we’re not equal. That’s why St. Paul used the image of the body. The body has different parts, but all of them are important; all of them are valuable, but that doesn’t mean that one is more important, greater than the other. Above all is Christ, who is the head.

I hope you enjoyed this little exposition. Let’s go ahead and I’ll close with our prayer. I think we may take a look at Titus next week; I haven’t decided, but if not, we’re going to go ahead and talk about Philemon. I wasn’t sure that we would get through all of this material for today. Let’s go ahead and close with our prayer, and we will continue our discussion of St. Paul’s epistles next week.

Lord, now let your servants depart in peace according to your word, for our eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared before the face of all peoples: a light to enlighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people, Israel.

Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life! Alethos anesti o Kyrios!