Paul's view of women

[Alt Thinker]

In context:

1 Corinthians 14

26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[g]
36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

[g] In a few manuscripts these verses come after verse 40.

If we look at the contentious verses (in italics above) in context we see that they do not really fit in several ways.

First, they interrupt the flow of thought. Try reading the passage omitting vv 34-35.

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Works fine, right? Now read v 35 and v 36.

35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you?

Does not really work, does it? It sounds like Paul is criticizing his audience for letting women speak. Where did that come from? He is criticizing the disorder of everyone trying to speak at once.

The second issue is that Paul explicitly refers to women speaking in church immediately before and immediately after the contentious verses.

26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.
…
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

How can a woman offer “a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation” or “be eager to prophesy” while keeping silent?

The answer would seem to lie in the footnote to the contentious verses shown above: In a few manuscripts these verses come after verse 40. Speculation is that these verses were a comment someone put in the column, disagreeing with Paul. Subsequent copyists thought it was part of the original and inserted it in their copies. Some put it where the comment started inserting it after v 34 and a few put it where the comment ended, after v 40.

In other words, Paul never said any such thing. Someone stuck it in later.

 

[Ingledsva]

The pattern of leadership provided by God from the beginning was that men were given authority to teach.


ING - Actually that is just the ideas passed to us by a patriarchal culture, writing, and editing, what came down to us.



Who were the elders & shephards of isreal? Men or Women?


ING - See above.


Who was the high priest? a man or woman?


They originally had a Goddess as well as a God, and both Priests and Priestesses.

Unger's Bible Encyclopedia says when they changed this, they even put on some of the Priestesses' clothing and symbols. The Ephod/epadu and pomegranates, for instance.

The Bible says the Hebrew people said they were better off when they worshiped their Goddess.


Was it a man or woman who led Isreal out of Egypt?


ING - Well, technically it was neither - "...I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians,..." Three people led them out - Miriam, Aaron and Moses.

"In his famous prophecy, which is the haftorah of the Sedra Balak, Micah reminds the people of G d’s many kindnesses to the Jewish people ever since He brought them out from the land of Egypt and the house of bondage, under the leadership of “Moses, Aaron and Miriam."

According to a Jewish friend it was Miriam, with timbrels and dancing women that led them out. This person also noted that the people refused to move while Miriam was outside the camp for 7 days.

It was also noted that patriarchy gave a different spin to Moses and Miriam turning white.

We are told that YHVH was angry with her and so turned her whole body "white" and she was punished by being put outside the camp for 7 days. HOWEVER, they leave out that Moses had one hand turn "white" and this was taken as a sign of favor from YHVH. Also Miriam's seven day span is a HOLY span.



When we look in the scriptures we can clearly see Gods preference for men to be the ones with authority. Why would we argue with Gods arrangement?

Baloney - these are the words of patriarchy. They "gathered" the scriptures, - and more importantly, decided which would become accepted, and which of the others were to be destroyed, or edited.

What we have is a patriarchal editing of material.


*

 

[james2ko]

First Timothy is one of the books in the NT that is widely believed to be a forgery.

It's also widely believe to be part of the inspired canon.

 

[james2ko]

Men have been ruling the world for a long time. Just look at the crime rates, wars, economic problems and polution levels and you have a clear picture of the fantastic leaders men are...:clap

Your proposition assumes women would have done better. Perhaps they would have or they would have done worse-- ending the world long ago. We'll never know. Scripture does indicate God will use both males and females from this dispensation as His spirit millennial leaders (Mar 12:25; Rev 20:6).

 

[james2ko]

Ancient, Androcentric horse crap that needs a serious second look.

Hey I'm just the messenger. You'll have to take up your gripe with the One who inspired it.

 

[Ingledsva]

First off we don't know that he didn't - there seems to be some controversy about that.

It very specifically tells us that women funded him, and followed him.

the gospel writers do name each of the 12 apostles, so i dont believe there is any controversy.

Women were very much apart of their preaching group and the gospel writers tell us that women were ministering to Jesus. So if they were comfortable with writing about womens involvement with Jesus ministry, then surely if any had been a selected apostles, they would have also been named as such.
It was a public ministry afterall, so it would have been public knowledge anyway and therefore no need to hide the fact.

ING - I'm sure you have heard of the Mary as Apostle to the Apostles story, etc. Also, we know for a fact that they decided what would be in the accepted books, and there are deletions and additions to these books by later people. We have had multiple discussions about this here.


I also don't agree with "they were comfortable with writing about womens involvement." (Most) Texts about women seem to have been "missed" or left in because they include others in them. Also we do have a named female Apostle. Junia was an imprisoned apostle.

EDIT - I forgot to add that I believe the only reason Junia was left in as an apostle, was because until fairly recently they thought she was a male.

However - if we take this story as true - what would he have accomplished in an extremely patriarchal land, by having his main apostles female?

if you want to look at it purely from that angle, is it really any different today?

We had our very first female prime minister here in Australia and she was hounded out of office by men who just continually critisized her and put her down. Eventually she lost the public's support.

Just look at any women in the public eye... the media are always nitpicking them. I dont believe that men in todays world actually respect women very much at all. And im sure it was the same back then too.

ING - Of course we still have patriarchy today. But what does that have to do with the fact that we definitely had patriarch back then, and they included only what they wanted to in the texts we are discussing?

Could they have been sent off to other lands to teach?

women were ministers in the congregations supporting the preaching work and supporting the congregations. Paul mentions them even by name as 'those working hard in the Lord'

Romans 16:1  I am introducing to you Phoe′be, our sister, who is a minister of the congregation that is in Cen′chre·ae, 2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the holy ones and give her whatever help she may need, for she herself also proved to be a defender of many, including me.12 Greet Try·phae′na and Try·pho′sa, women who are working hard in the Lord. Greet Per′sis, our beloved one, for she has worked hard in the Lord.

What were these women doing that Paul gave them commendation and instructed the congregation to 'assist' them in 'any way she may need' ?

ING - Indeed I've written about these few many times. I believe she was actually the Minister as she is mentioned first (in respect.) However, I asked about sending them to other lands (under patriarchy.) These were home churches where these people lived - and obviously after Jesus was dead.

Obviously Pauls words about remaining 'silent' doesnt mean what people seem to think they mean.

I'm with the people that believe they were inserted.



*

 

[Pegg]

ING - I'm sure you have heard of the Mary as Apostle to the Apostles story, etc. Also, we know for a fact that they decided what would be in the accepted books, and there are deletions and additions to these books by later people. We have had multiple discussions about this here.

the earliest christians catalogued the books which came with apostolic approval...they are mentioned in the Mauratorian fragment of the 2nd century.

The reason why those other books were left out was because they were not according to the truth...they were fanciful embellishments designed to promote alternative ideas and pagan philosophies.

I also don't agree with "they were comfortable with writing about womens involvement." (Most) Texts about women seem to have been "missed" or left in because they include others in them. Also we do have a named female Apostle. Junia was an imprisoned apostle.

EDIT - I forgot to add that I believe the only reason Junia was left in as an apostle, was because until fairly recently they thought she was a male.

another fanciful tale? Why didnt' Jesus apostles mention her? Why didn't the gospel writers record the fact?

Because it wasnt' true perhaps??

ING - Of course we still have patriarchy today. But what does that have to do with the fact that we definitely had patriarch back then, and they included only what they wanted to in the texts we are discussing?

well it certainly makes sense as to why God would not want women to be authorities in the congregations... the people would likely reject their authority as they still do today.

ING - Indeed I've written about these few many times. I believe she was actually the Minister as she is mentioned first (in respect.) However, I asked about sending them to other lands (under patriarchy.) These were home churches where these people lived - and obviously after Jesus was dead.

Early christian women were not given such responsibilities to travel abroad and preach because they were most often mothers or daughters and had their own heavy responsibilities in caring for their families.

Why would God want to load her down with something that would be detrimental to her childrens welfare and the benefit of the communities where she lived?? Dont you think it would have been a burden for a mother to have to carry out such an assignment? Is God so unreasonable. Women should be greatful that they dont have to carry such a heavy responsibility... we've got it easy.

 

[sojourner]

Your proposition assumes women would have done better. Perhaps they would have or they would have done worse-- ending the world long ago. We'll never know. Scripture does indicate God will use both males and females from this dispensation as His spirit millennial leaders (Mar 12:25; Rev 20:6).

I don't think it's a black-or-white proposition, though. I think what the poster is saying is that Western Xy has historically been androcentric and misogynistic in the extreme, in the sense that men are seen to represent mind and spirit (which are good), and women are equated with bodies and sex (which are to be shunned). It has afforded men the "right" to lead, to be righteous, to be the teachers, to be the spiritual cornerstone. It is this type of androcentrism, whose roots are in neoplatonism and Aristoleanism that influenced the "misogynistic" additions to Paul.

 

[sojourner]

Hey I'm just the messenger. You'll have to take up your gripe with the One who inspired it.

I don't believe for one second that this is in any way "God-breathed." It comes straight from neoplatonism and Aristotleanism.

 

[Ingledsva]

the earliest christians catalogued the books which came with apostolic approval...they are mentioned in the Mauratorian fragment of the 2nd century.

The reason why those other books were left out was because they were not according to the truth...they were fanciful embellishments designed to promote alternative ideas and pagan philosophies.

[/B]

another fanciful tale? Why didnt' Jesus apostles mention her? Why didn't the gospel writers record the fact?

Because it wasnt' true perhaps??




well it certainly makes sense as to why God would not want women to be authorities in the congregations... the people would likely reject their authority as they still do today.



Early christian women were not given such responsibilities to travel abroad and preach because they were most often mothers or daughters and had their own heavy responsibilities in caring for their families.

Why would God want to load her down with something that would be detrimental to her childrens welfare and the benefit of the communities where she lived?? Dont you think it would have been a burden for a mother to have to carry out such an assignment? Is God so unreasonable. Women should be greatful that they dont have to carry such a heavy responsibility... we've got it easy.

LOL! Right! Everything these patriarchal males decided to leave out, or alter by deleting sections, or adding things in, - were all fantasy, or not true? Not.



*

 

[Pegg]

LOL! Right! Everything these patriarchal males decided to leave out, or alter by deleting sections, or adding things in, - were all fantasy, or not true? Not.



*

and what about the patriarchal males who sought to take dominance and control the congregations because they were power hungry and selfishly wanted to benefit themselves?

Perhaps those writings which were left out came from men like that.

 

[james2ko]

It has afforded men the "right" to lead, to be righteous, to be the teachers, to be the spiritual cornerstone. It is this type of androcentrism, whose roots are in neoplatonism and Aristoleanism that influenced the "misogynistic" additions to Paul.

I have to disagree. If we believe God created both male and female, we also have to believe He created the male psyche with the propensity to be the family and civic leaders. Eve was created as Adam's "helper" (Gen 2:18). I believe God never intended women to be leaders over men. This is made evident by God Himself in His negative admonition to Israel who apparently employed women civic rulers or the decisions of the male leaders were heavily influenced by the women in their lives:

Isa 3:12 As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths."​

Although they could be leaders/teachers over women in the church (Tit 2:3-5). And I already know what you and others reading this are thinking. I'm far from being misogynistic. My very happy housewife of 29 years, whom I love very much, makes all of the household and or small purchase decisions without having to consult me, although she often does. She is also consulted and sometimes herself recommends and coordinates major purchase/family decisions. Her wisdom is sought after by women in and out of the church. She is an extremely capable human being, but she also recognizes her Godly role as my helper. Although not perfect (who is?), she's as close to the Proverbs 31 woman as one can get--a true blessing indeed.

I don't think it's a black-or-white proposition, though. I think what the poster is saying is that Western Xy has historically been androcentric and misogynistic in the extreme, in the sense that men are seen to represent mind and spirit (which are good), and women are equated with bodies and sex (which are to be shunned).

Is it really the poster's thoughts or are they your own?

I don't believe for one second that this is in any way "God-breathed." It comes straight from neoplatonism and Aristotleanism.

Just make sure you look me up when you explain this to Christ on judgment day. I definitely want to see the look on His face. I'm guessing it would be something like .......

 

[SkylarHunter]

Scripture does indicate God will use both males and females from this dispensation as His spirit millennial leaders (Mar 12:25; Rev 20:6).

My point exactly.

well it certainly makes sense as to why God would not want women to be authorities in the congregations... the people would likely reject their authority as they still do today.

I have to (reluctantly) agree. I don't believe for a second that God views women as less than men because if he did he wouldn't have chosen women to be among the anointed ones. So this is simply a matter of men's pride and nothing else.

I once had a conversation similar to this one with a man who belongs to a christian religion and who follows the bible very closely. You know what he told me about it? He said that most men are self-righteous, proud creatures with a constant need to have their egos fed and if religious organizations allowed women to perform the same tasks as men, a lot of men would leave because they wouldn't feel as important anymore. This has nothing to do with faith or with someone's ability to do something.

If we look at teaching from a logical point of view, what religious leaders are teaching is not their own material but the word of God (or so they say). God is the real author and the real teacher; they are only the messengers.

Early christian women were not given such responsibilities to travel abroad and preach because they were most often mothers or daughters and had their own heavy responsibilities in caring for their families.

Why would God want to load her down with something that would be detrimental to her childrens welfare and the benefit of the communities where she lived?? Dont you think it would have been a burden for a mother to have to carry out such an assignment? Is God so unreasonable. Women should be greatful that they dont have to carry such a heavy responsibility... we've got it easy.

A lot of things changed since those times. We have running water, electricity, airplanes, computers, women with careers and no family, etc. Shouldn't we adapt what we can do to our present circumstances?

If someone offered me a position as a religious leader I would respectfully decline it. It's not my thing, I'm not interested, however I would like it to be my choice instead of having it imposed on me because I wasn't born with a penis.

 

[Brickjectivity]

In other words, Paul never said any such thing. Someone stuck it in later.

I am persuaded that there is originally equality between women and men in the church, but I also don't think church should be centred around leaders like it is today. The church could operate in a very decentralized way, and there is no compelling reason why it has to have large hierarchies and institutions. The gap between Christians of now and those in the lost past can be chalked up to a lack of Torah study. Without it there is no basis upon which to talk about freedom and equality in the Bible. Most church people have no functional knowledge of Torah. Torah is presumed to be about killing a goat while wearing a towel, and that is the biggest difference between Christians of today and back in the day.

 

[Draupadi]

Yes she was a prophet and was used by God to give reassurance of a victory. And because she was a prophet, the Israelites would seek her assistance in solving their legal disputes with one another.

But she wasn't a priest with authority to teach and she never did that. She wasn't the only woman prophet either.

I thought that a judge had authority over his or her people, be it men or women? I definitely believe that Paul's teaching of men having authority over woman is contrary to Christ's teachings who had female followers who taught to ALL. And prophets usually had authority over their people and TAUGHT ALL. That would not have been possible if women had no authority over the men.

EDIT: I have read James2ko's post where God warns the Israelites about having female leaders and take my words back. But I don't think that he has deprived women from the authority of teaching other men.

 

[sojourner]

I have to disagree. If we believe God created both male and female, we also have to believe He created the male psyche with the propensity to be the family and civic leaders. Eve was created as Adam's "helper" (Gen 2:18). I believe God never intended women to be leaders over men. This is made evident by God Himself in His negative admonition to Israel who apparently employed women civic rulers or the decisions of the male leaders were heavily influenced by the women in their lives:

Isa 3:12 As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths."​

Although they could be leaders/teachers over women in the church (Tit 2:3-5). And I already know what you and others reading this are thinking. I'm far from being misogynistic. My very happy housewife of 29 years, whom I love very much, makes all of the household and or small purchase decisions without having to consult me, although she often does. She is also consulted and sometimes herself recommends and coordinates major purchase/family decisions. Her wisdom is sought after by women in and out of the church. She is an extremely capable human being, but she also recognizes her Godly role as my helper. Although not perfect (who is?), she's as close to the Proverbs 31 woman as one can get--a true blessing indeed.



Is it really the poster's thoughts or are they your own?



Just make sure you look me up when you explain this to Christ on judgment day. I definitely want to see the look on His face. I'm guessing it would be something like .......

I... just...


Wow.



Psssst!!! The earth is round, radio isn't magic, it is possible to travel more than 30 MPH without exploding, tomatoes are good for you, and China isn't a myth. Join us in the 20th century. And then, move on into the 21st. You're embarrassing yourself!

 

[metis]

The pattern of leadership provided by God from the beginning was that men were given authority to teach.

Who were the elders & shephards of isreal? Men or Women?

Who was the high priest? a man or woman?

Was it a man or woman who led Isreal out of Egypt?


When we look in the scriptures we can clearly see Gods preference for men to be the ones with authority. Why would we argue with Gods arrangement?

You did not deal with what I posted, so let me just ask you outright do you agree that women should be silent in church as Paul directs, yes or no? Also, do the women in you KH keep their heads covered and greet each other with a "holy kiss" as is written?

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, I can't let this one go. This is a perfect example of how imbedded in our social thinking and how insidious this type of thinking is:

I have to disagree. If we believe God created both male and female, we also have to believe He created the male psyche with the propensity to be the family and civic leaders. Eve was created as Adam's "helper" (Gen 2:18). I believe God never intended women to be leaders over men. This is made evident by God Himself in His negative admonition to Israel who apparently employed women civic rulers or the decisions of the male leaders were heavily influenced by the women in their lives:
Isa 3:12 As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths."
Although they could be leaders/teachers over women in the church (Tit 2:3-5). And I already know what you and others reading this are thinking. I'm far from being misogynistic. My very happy housewife of 29 years, whom I love very much, makes all of the household and or small purchase decisions without having to consult me, although she often does. She is also consulted and sometimes herself recommends and coordinates major purchase/family decisions. Her wisdom is sought after by women in and out of the church. She is an extremely capable human being, but she also recognizes her Godly role as my helper. Although not perfect (who is?), she's as close to the Proverbs 31 woman as one can get--a true blessing indeed.

First of all, you're basing an absolutism upon a document that was never meant to be absolute, and whose very philosophy is informed by androcentric thought.

Second, it's a document that has shaped our post-modern society in its own, imbedded androcentrism. Don't believe me? Women are still objectified, violated, and dehumanized -- even in 21st century America, because of this imbedded assumption.

You say, "I'm far from being misogynistic," yet, instead of encouraging your spouse (and I hope you don't mind my dragging her into the debate) to be an equal partner in the relationship, you encourage her acceptance of "her role" (as imposed by an androcentric social mind set).

One of three things is possible here :
1) she has given up her bid for equality because she's either tired or afraid of being Sisyphus and bucking the system that subtly ensconces her in oppression, under the guise of being a "good, Christian woman,"
2) she loves you more than her own person, in that she wants to please and make you comfortable, to the neglect of her own equality with you,
3) she actually buys into this horse-and-buggy thinking, and sees herself as, somehow, "naturally incapable" of being on an absolute equal footing with men.

Any of those options is unhealthy. For both of you. "She is an extremely capable human being," you say, "but she also recognizes her Godly role in being 'my helper.'" I argue that this is a misogynistic POV to take. It's so insidious that you're actually both comfortable with the rightness of her being, somehow, less of a human being than you are, and with your own egocentrism. And, yes, that is what you think (before you argue that such sexually-embodied subservience isn't "less," just "different").

Any time sex is used to define absolute roles that are defined as "over" or "under" other people, it represents a brand of dehumanization, which is violence, which is a product of hatred (in whatever "religious" clothing it is draped). In this case, a deep-seated, culturally-imbedded hatred that has prevailed for far too long in this society. And it's probably, if truth be told, the reason why you're against homosexual marriage -- it represents something that just doesn't squeeze a couple into the mold of one partner being "over" the other, as defined by their sex. And we just can't have that!

I don't mean to say that "you secretly hate your wife." I'm sure you love her with all your heart. But, culturally, you think all women should be subservient to men -- to let men lead them, because they're "incapable," by some sort of God-ordained something. That represents a basic hatred of the female sex. And it is misogyny.

 

[fantome profane]

Gotta be careful with that. Back then in eretz Israel, it was not unusual for a disciple to write what his teacher taught him and then give credit to the teacher by using his name. This was done also to give credibility to what he wrote.

Even today people might create forgeries for much the same reason, to give credibility to they words. I am sure that many people who created these kind of forgeries felt in their heart that they were justified in doing so. But people can commit all kinds of crimes and unethical acts and find a way to justify it to themselves. Forgery may not have been a literal crime in ancient Israel in the sense that it was part of any written legal code, but many writers from that time (perhaps including Paul himself) complained about this as an unethical and dishonest act.

 

[metis]

Even today people might create forgeries for much the same reason, to give credibility to they words. I am sure that many people who created these kind of forgeries felt in their heart that they were justified in doing so. But people can commit all kinds of crimes and unethical acts and find a way to justify it to themselves. Forgery may not have been a literal crime in ancient Israel in the sense that it was part of any written legal code, but many writers from that time (perhaps including Paul himself) complained about this as an unethical and dishonest act.

But in many cases it was considered a compliment to one's mentor and was not viewed as being unethical. However, there are probably some that indeed were forgeries or modified in some way by later revisionists, and especially the latter seems to have been more common as commentaries ("midrashim") were sometimes injected into the scriptures, such as the ending of Mark that we now read.