I have read/been taught/absorbed a lot of evangelical discourse on Paul’s teaching about women. To say that it was imparted to me in the womb would unfortunately not be an exaggeration.

When it comes to the sticky issue of “women must be silent” the options given are:
- Paul was talking about a problem specific to a few women in the Corinthian church;
- This verse was inserted later by someone who was not Paul;
- Women are allowed to talk and even “teach” but not allowed to “preach";
- It was relevant to the time but we don’t need to pay attention to it anymore, like we also ignore the rules on eating blood and head coverings.

None of those options were ever really satisfactory to me. Like, they are plausible but always seemed like convenient loopholes. Was Paul inserting his misogynist agenda into the message guided by God, or was this coming from God themself? Either way, the answer isn’t good.

Barr gave me the first answer that ever rang true. I think this is the most vital message of her book, so I will copy excerpts here:

“In 215 BC, a defeated and cash-strapped Rome passed a new law. The context was their greatest military defeat ever. The year prior, on August 2, the Carthaginian general Hannibal had destroyed their army at Cannae during the Second Punic War. Sources tell us that between fifty thousand and seventy thousand Roman soldiers died that day. That is more than some of the bloodiest battles in WWII. … Rome did not succumb. They tightened their belt, raised a new army, and kept going.
…Rome’s belt-tightening led to a crackdown on a growing group of independently wealthy women—the wives and daughters who profited from the sudden reduction in male guardians… Rome needed money from everyone. So they passed the Oppian Law. Women could no longer…possess more than half an ounce of gold. Some even had to turn over their wartime inheritances to the state.
…When the crisis was over, the law restricting women’s wealth continued, while laws restricting men’s wealth did not. By 195 BC, women in Rome had had enough. They protested, blockading the streets and even the pathways to the Forum, demanding that the law be repealed.

"One consul, Cato the Elder, opposed repealing the law (as recorded by Livy during the reign of Caesar Augustus approx 30 BC to 17 AD):
‘At home our freedom is conquered by female fury, here in the Forum it is bruised and trampled upon, and because we have not contained the individuals, we fear the lot…Indeed, I blushed when not a short while ago, I walked through the midst of a band of women…I should have said, “What kind of behavior is this? Running around in public, blocking streets, and speaking to other women’s husbands! Could you not have asked your own husbands the same thing at home? Are you more charming in public with others’ husbands than at home with your own? And yet, it is not fitting even at home…for you to concern yourselves with what laws are passed or repealed here.” Our ancestors did not want women to conduct any—not even private—business without a guardian; they wanted them to be under the authority of parents, brothers, or husbands; we (the gods help us!) even now let them snatch at the government and meddle in the Forum and our assemblies. What are they doing now on the streets and crossroads, if they are not persuading the tribunes to vote for repeal? … If they are victorious now, what will they not attempt? As soon as they begin to be your equals, they will have become your superiors.’

Compared to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: ‘Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also 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.’

"Paul was an educated Roman citizen. He would have been familiar with contemporary rhetorical practices that corrected faulty understanding by quoting the faulty understanding and then refuting it. Paul does this in 1 Corinthians 6 and 7 with his quotations 'all things are lawful for me,' 'food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,' and 'it is well for a man not to touch a woman.’ In these instances, Paul is quoting the faulty views of the Gentile world…Isn’t it possible, as Peppiatt has argued, that Paul is doing the same thing in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 that he does in 1 Corinthians 6 and 7? As Peppiatt writes, ’The prohibitions placed on women in the letter to the Corinthians are examples of how the Corinthians were treating women in line with their own cultural expectations and values, against Paul’s teachings.’

"When 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is read as a quotation representing a Corinthian practice, Paul’s purpose seems clear: to distinguish what the Corinthians were doing (‘women be silent’) and to clarify that Christians should not be following the Corinthian practice (‘What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?’ [note that the exclamation What! is present in the Greek and RSV])

"If Paul is indeed quoting the Roman worldview to counter it with the Christian worldview, then his meaning is the exact opposite of what evangelical women have been taught."

(Note that Barr did not invent this reading: "D.W. Odell-Scott argued for in 1983, Charles Talbert argued for in 1987, and Peppiatt has argued for again more recently.”)

——

Mind. Blown. I can just imagine Paul’s outrage: What! Since when did Roman law become a guide for how we act as brothers and sisters in Christ?? Did God give you a special message about that? because God sure hasn’t told me or anyone else about that!

This changes everything, friends.

Barr continues to refute and refocus the lens on Paul’s supposed sexism in other passages in equally satisfactory ways. You know, I always say that unless you can confidently explain something, you don’t really believe it to be true in your heart of hearts. If there’s a niggle of a doubt, you are repeating what you heard, not what you actually know-know. And that’s what I have felt at least for the past two decades: Are the Pauline letters really supposed to be scripture? Or are some parts of the Bible less Bible-y than others? I’m thankful that I have reached a point where I am completely transparent about my doubts with anyone who asked, and comfortable admitting that I don’t know what I believe about certain hot topics. I’m also thankful to Barr for giving me a key to resolving at least a couple of those doubts.

Barr is a medieval historian, so she particularly shines when she talks about the role of women in the medieval church and the shifting perceptions and roles of women after the Reformation. Fascinating, give me more of this, I will read it!

The one downside to this book is that it often feels like she is subtweeting and while she does name names and bring receipts, if you aren’t really aware of current controversies and the big players in US evangelical circles it will probably feel like why is this in here. Examples include: Bill Gothard, James Dobson, Mark Dever, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Russell Moore, Rachael Denhollander, Beth Moore, the SBC, the ESV, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the Eternal Subordination of the Son/Arianism (she does explain an overview of this at the very end of the book), the Gospel Coalition, and yes, she even comes for the beloved Tim Keller. Anyways, I am privy to all of these names and scandals and understood her subtweeting, most unfortunately as I would prefer not to know nor to have ever been involved but welp here I am.

So yes, I would recommend this book! And I will be sharing what I learned. ^_^