Did Paul blow it?

For instance, Paul gave the Christian position regarding the structure of a Christian society thus: “In it there is no room for Greek and Jew [social distinction]; circumcised and uncircumcised [religious rite distinction], barbarian, Scythian [cultural distinction], slave, or free man [social, economic distinction]; Christ is everything and everywhere” (Col. 3:11, Moffatt). And in Gal 3:28 he adds: “There is no room for male and female [sex distinction]; you are all one in Christ Jesus.” That is the Christian position—clear, positive, sweeping. And in Peter’s speech at Pentecost he said: “Your sons and daughters shall prophesy”—note “and daughters”—(Acts·2:17, Moffatt).

But in 1 Cor. 14: 34 (Moffatt) Paul enjoins something else: “Women must keep quiet at gatherings of the church. They are not allowed to speak; … as the Law enjoins.” Note that he appeals to “the Law” for authority. Is he falling into the very thing he told the Galatians they were doing? It seems so. Every time Paul tried to put woman in a subordinate position, he appealed to the Old Testament, not to Jesus. Note: “but woman represents the supremacy of man. (Man was not made from woman, woman was made from man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.)” (1 Cor. 11:7–9, Moffatt); Here he turns back to the first creation for corroboration for his position—the first creation, not to the new creation in Jesus where “there is no room for male or female.” Again in 1 Tim. 2:12-14 (Moffatt) he says: “I allow no woman to teach or dictate to men, she must keep quiet. For Adam was created first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, it was Eve.” Here he turned to the first Adam for the sustaining of his position—the first Adam, not the Second Adam, Christ. His Christianity slipped a cog. And that slipping back to the pre-Christian has caused much confusion. Paul says that sometimes he was not inspired-he was speaking on his own. This was one of the times. And the ages have suffered because of it.—E. Stanley Jones, Growing Spiritually, 307

<idle musing>
You can not accuse E. Stanley Jones of being a progressive! Yet, he sees something wrong here and isn't afraid to say it: Paul blew it! Paul spoke out of himself and not at the leading of the Spirit!

Just an
</idle musing>