PAUL, A MISOGYNIST?

[chikachuks1]

I have seen many people on numerous occasions, made the claim that Paul, the Pharisaic zealot, turned disciple of Jesus Christ was a misogynist. Often time, I was not moved by such claim. To me, his being tagged chauvinistic or misogynistic or even been one doesn’t really prove nor disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ, neither does it relegate the claim of new covenant of Jesus to the background. It is simply non sequitur to the core claims of Christianity. After all, it is following the step of Jesus that make people Christians.

But recently, as I studies the new testament in its original language(Greek), I developed genuine concern for finding out the truth about some rather controversial issue of this sort. Let me tell you what I think about the issue.

Here are the two verses mostly used to how misogynistic Paul was:

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they aren’t permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law says. If they will learn anything, let them ask their husband at home, for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church (1 Corinthian 14:34-35)

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

This pretty look very much like Paul believed that women are to keep quiet in church meetings (all kind of quietness of course).

Early church custom, Paul’s writings and conduct elsewhere, and good principles of biblical interpretation all say that we should not take these verses literally
The verb used for silence “sigao’, was the same verb that was used in Act 15:12 when Paul was addressing the council of Jerusalem disciples. It also was used in Act 21:40 when he was addressing a group of men. In both cases, it was used to mean orderly silence. Now, it would be preposterous to interpret that word without taking its context into consideration. In chapter 11, Paul began to address the Corinthians on the disorderliness of their meetings. He wrote about issues on head covering as also the Lord’s super. In chapter 12, he addressed the proper use of spiritual gifts, and the need for not jettisoning any gifts seeing all are for the use of the body of Christ. In chapter 13, he described love as the best way and encouraged Corinthians to strive for love. In chapter 14, he drew contrast in the use of tongue-speaking and prophesy, as it seems apparent some persons in Corinth placed more value on the later and consequently see tongue speakers as spiritually superior than their counterparts who prophesy. He gave specific description on how to operate with both spiritual gifts in their meetings.

Paul didn’t stop them from the use of tongue. He only gave them guidelines on how to use each of the spiritual gifts(gift of tongue, interpretation of tongues and prophesy) in order to not have a chaotic worship meetings- several people prophesying at once, some ministering in tongues, rather than in plain words, others not willing to allow another person to outperform them in prophesying wouldn’t keep quiet and let others minister. Now, all these amounted to chaos. And verse 35 which was said to have restricted women from speaking should be interpreted in that context. Why so, in Chapter 11 of Corinth, Paul described the covering of women while praying and prophesying. Now, if one were to interpret verse 34 of Corinthians 14 as being quite from teaching, praying and prophesying in the church, then the person have to be ready to explain away the verse that gave direction on how women are to pray and prophesy in the church(which necessarily implies that women prays). Surely if they prophesy they cannot keep silent.

Take a look also at verse 35, it reads “if they will learn anything, let them ask their husband at home’. Paul’s main point is, they shouldn’t talk in church, not even to ask questions. The questions themselves are not wrong, for they can be asked at home, but it is disorderly to ask them in the worship service. Somebody would say are the women the only ones disrupting the service. Actually, one would have to ask why Paul had to instruct Timothy that men of Ephesus should pray lifting up holy hands without WRATH or DOUBTING. Something the women aren’t insulated from. In any case, it is most likely that each of Paul letters was specifically for pressing issues in the church. And the word used for “shame’ is synonymous with indecent, or a breach of propriety. According to Dr Craig Keener “throughout the first century Mediterranean world novices were expected to learn quitely…..the verse isn’t aimed at shutting up women with valid speaking ministries, but was intended to silence inappropriate ignorant questions posed by uneducated women’.

The other passage is “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence’. (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

The Greek verb used in the passage for “usurp authority’ is authentein.

A study of Paul’s letters shows that he regularly used a form of the Greek “exousia” when referring to the use of authority in the church (see 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 9:4-6, 9:12, 11:10, 2 Cor 2:8, 10:8, 13:10, Col. 1:13, 2 Thess 3:12, Rom 6:15, 9:21). So it is strange that some modern versions translate this simply as “authority”. Considering the context, it is likely that Paul was objecting to something other than the legitimate use of authority in 1 Timothy 2:12. There is also the possibility that the verb didaskein (to teach) is linked here to the verb authentein in what is called a hendiadys (two words joined by a conjunction to make a single point). “Don’t drink while driving’ would be a modern example. So a better interpretation would be “don’t teach in a domineering way’. And that’s like abuse of authority than its proper use.

Moreover, Paul said in Romans 16:7 “Greet Andronicus and Junia(s), my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to [or prominent among] the apostles.Some commentators claimed these two women were Apostles. However, the only thing one can claim (and that correctly) is that both of these women were well known in Apostolic circle. Luke wrote in Act of the Apostles of the Seven daughters of Philip who prophesy, and spoke of Paul association with them. Priscilla, the wife of Aquila happened to be fellow tent maker and Christian labourers with Paul was in all probability a prominent figure in the church, not by the influence of her husband, seeing her name was mentioned first before her husband’s, something quite untypical of the Jewish tradition. Paul spoke of Phoebe, who he described as a servant of the church. The phrase “servant of the church’ was translated from “diakonos tes ekklesia’: deaconess of the church. In essence, there were female folks who functioned in the same office as men even in the gentile church oversaw by Paul. So one who would claim Paul was a misogynist must be ready to give answer to some of the difficult historical and contextual issues surrounding the very same passages used to lay claim to such. To Paul “(NIV) “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’. (Galatians 3:28)
SOURCE: Christianityupdate.com/forum

By Taiwo Ademola

[Guest shiloh357]

One thing that needs to be understood about Paul's rules for women in the Church has to do with cultural climate in the pagan cities in which these churches existed and what the women of that day and age were involved in.

In I Corinthians and in Ephesus and other places, women were getting saved out of mystery religions like the Oracles at Delphi and there was a lot demonic stuff going on over there.   Women played a prominent role in that as priestesses they were accustomed to prophesying and speaking in unintelligible words and they were prone to use those things in the church.  Paul did not want them to use their counterfeit prophetic powers or their counterfeit version of speaking in tongues in the churches. 

Women were far more liberated among the Greeks and were not shrinking violets.  The priestesses at the temple of Diana were a very good example of that.  They were the first "women's lib" movement, back then. 

It wasn't that he was misogynist, at all.  He simply wanted to keep pagan practices out of the church and women were heavily involved in those things.   He was in no way treating them as inferior.

[Unfailing Presence]

Another factor involved with Paul putting women on the down low in terms of their  public speaking could very well be a bit of male chivalry .

Professing Christ in that day was a very  bloody ,  dangerous , deadly  business . 

In fact the first time that Saul ( Paul )  is ever mentioned in scripture  is at the public murder of Stephen , the first martyr ,  for his speaking of this Jesus who is the Christ .

Then consider that almost all of the disciples were martyred for their public speaking of this Jesus who is the Christ .

It is always a man's basic nature to try and protect a woman he loves in Christ .

This " nature " of men to try and protect women  is even discussed as a factor today in the introducing of women into combat positions in the military .

Paul even details his various scars and perils  as a result of his public professions :

  

                                               " Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one .

                                                    Thrice was I beaten with rods , once was I stoned ......And through a basket was I let down a wall and escaped his hands .

                                                           ( 2 Corinthians 11 : 24-33 ) 

 

On  occasion in public I have  gently touched my wife on her arm or hand  and given her a look just as she was about to say something that I knew would ultimately cause

her pain and suffering , but she did not realize it would at the time , and she has learned to trust my  judgement in these rare instances , later thanking me for getting her feet back

on the ground .

This  " silencing " is not about her somehow being lesser or inferior to me , she is far superior to me in many awesome ways ,   it is about me loving her , recognizing her susceptibility to be more easily hurt than I am and preventing it out of my love for her . 

I am by know means perfect either , and she has several times had to shorten my leash  for me when I am about to make a crucial error in judgement that I could not see. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Unfailing Presence

[Hawkins]

Revelation 2:20 (NIV2011)
²⁰  Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
 

It ties to what this is. It refers to the various ways Satan can introduce a false doctrine into Christianity at the stage before a Canon is made available.

 

Ancient custom works like this. They don't have the Internet we have today, knowledge is basically gained through travelling with exposure. Women are not allowed to travel freely for the sake of their own safety under most circumstance during their age of education. That says in the ancient world, women don't receive a fair education as men do. Paul's knowledge was gained from one of the most famous Pharisee back then. His knowledge was possibly constantly assessed by the Sanhedrin. He's thus potentially a candidate of the Sanhedrin at the time when he received direct order from the Sanhedrin to persecute Christians. He has years of debates in synagogues with all others as knowledgeable as he is. His knowledge of Jewish laws are proven with tracked records. Women back then seldom have the privilege to learn and access the knowledge of both the Jewish laws and Scripture knowledge this way. Most women are thus not qualified to speak in synagogues. It's not a discrimination, it's rather a reality to face back then. 

 

Satan basically has two ways to introduce a false doctrine. One is introduced by men who have some basic knowledge to twist the situation using "logic" to present a false doctrine. Paul is completely ready to counter this kind of "logical" introduction of a heresy.

The other way is through a woman speaker. The doctrine can be completely baseless. She may only apply her charm and lust or even sexual immorality to bring in a false doctrine you may not logically defy. Paul may thus be caught by surprise to give out those comments. Those comments have nothing to do with discrimination as we perceive today.

 

[secretopossumcabal]

Men are in nearer proxity to God in the hierarchy of Love. Adam was taken out of God but Eve was taken out of Adam. Meaning that we have a clearer understanding of his voice, the voice can come to women, and often does, but it's more often received in men than women. 

For men it is objective reality, for women it is subjective reality, ergo women are more ruled by their emotions (and are more easily led astray for it which is why the snake came to Eve first), and emotions make a terrible master. As God cares for man, and become our eyes and ears, so must man become the eyes of ears of women.  

Meaning we serve better as priests to the society than women; women are like priests to their own children and immediate families, thereby a hierarchy is established. God leads man, man leads woman, women lead children, this is the heavenly hiearchy.   
 

Edited November 21, 2017 by secretopossumcabal

[hmbld]

3 hours ago, secretopossumcabal said:

Men are in nearer proxity to God in the hierarchy of Love. Adam was taken out of God but Eve was taken out of Adam. Meaning that we have a clearer understanding of his voice, the voice can come to women, and often does, but it's more often received in men than women. 

For men it is objective reality, for women it is subjective reality, ergo women are more ruled by their emotions (and are more easily led astray for it which is why the snake came to Eve first), and emotions make a terrible master. As God cares for man, and become our eyes and ears, so must man become the eyes of ears of women.  

Meaning we serve better as priests to the society than women; women are like priests to their own children and immediate families, thereby a hierarchy is established. God leads man, man leads woman, women lead children, this is the heavenly hiearchy.   
 

Out of all that, the very first sentence is the hardest one to get past. I can’t see it having any biblical proof. 

[secretopossumcabal]

30 minutes ago, hmbld said:

Out of all that, the very first sentence is the hardest one to get past. I can’t see it having any biblical proof. 

Genesis 2:22:

"The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man."

God = Absolute truth
Man = Objective truth
Woman = Subjective truth

Each time you divide a thing you get further and further away from the original form, so it becomes increasingly harder to preserve the truth.

 

[hmbld]

No. 

[daughterofGrace]

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 2:55 PM, secretopossumcabal said:

Men are in nearer proxity to God in the hierarchy of Love. Adam was taken out of God but Eve was taken out of Adam. Meaning that we have a clearer understanding of his voice, the voice can come to women, and often does, but it's more often received in men than women. 

For men it is objective reality, for women it is subjective reality, ergo women are more ruled by their emotions (and are more easily led astray for it which is why the snake came to Eve first), and emotions make a terrible master. As God cares for man, and become our eyes and ears, so must man become the eyes of ears of women.  

Meaning we serve better as priests to the society than women; women are like priests to their own children and immediate families, thereby a hierarchy is established. God leads man, man leads woman, women lead children, this is the heavenly hiearchy.   
 

That's one of the most insulting, misogynistic, and unbiblical posts I have ever read on this forum. 

The ideas in that wretched post are based on Aristotelian philosophy.  Aristotle referred to women as "botched men".  Those hateful beliefs about the superiority of men came from the Greeks, not from God.  Sadly, they were incorporated into the early church and, even more sadly, some people are still spouting them today as if they're true.

To categorically dismiss all women as unreasonable, simple creatures run entirely by their emotions is so wrong.  And you'd better hope that women hear from God as much as men do since we make up half of the world's population and raise the world's children and function in the workplace in many capacities, often in positions of power and influence.

The Bible states clearly that both men and women are made in his image.  Are we different?  Yes, we are, in ways that complement each other, not in ways that make one better than the other.  Men are not superior in any way and they are no closer to God.  There is nothing in the Bible that states that.  And there's nothing hierarchical in God making Adam first.  That's like saying my older sister is superior to me because she was born before I was. 

Posts like the one above make me angry.  But they make me sad, too, because they don't just negatively affect women.  They negatively affect men as well.  We are all hurt by such lies.  They keep us from recognizing who we all are, male and female, in Christ, and how we were meant to work together in his name.  Posts like the above don't recognize the equality of the sexes and, with that unhealthy imbalance, none of us can live out fully who God wants us to be.  It only puts us at odds.

My thanks to chikachuks 1 for posting such an excellent and sound understanding of what those verses from the Bible say about women.  We need to hear more of that and we need to have more men speak out about this -- especially to other men.

[secretopossumcabal]

54 minutes ago, daughterofGrace said:

That's one of the most insulting, misogynistic, and unbiblical posts I have ever read on this forum. 

The ideas in that wretched post are based on Aristotelian philosophy.  Aristotle referred to women as "botched men".  Those hateful beliefs about the superiority of men came from the Greeks, not from God.  Sadly, they were incorporated into the early church and, even more sadly, some people are still spouting them today as if they're true.

To categorically dismiss all women as unreasonable, simple creatures run entirely by their emotions is so wrong.  And you'd better hope that women hear from God as much as men do since we make up half of the world's population and raise the world's children and function in the workplace in many capacities, often in positions of power and influence.

The Bible states clearly that both men and women are made in his image.  Are we different?  Yes, we are, in ways that complement each other, not in ways that make one better than the other.  Men are not superior in any way and they are no closer to God.  There is nothing in the Bible that states that.  And there's nothing hierarchical in God making Adam first.  That's like saying my older sister is superior to me because she was born before I was. 

Posts like the one above make me angry.  But they make me sad, too, because they don't just negatively affect women.  They negatively affect men as well.  We are all hurt by such lies.  They keep us from recognizing who we all are, male and female, in Christ, and how we were meant to work together in his name.  Posts like the above don't recognize the equality of the sexes and, with that unhealthy imbalance, none of us can live out fully who God wants us to be.  It only puts us at odds.

My thanks to chikachuks 1 for posting such an excellent and sound understanding of what those verses from the Bible say about women.  We need to hear more of that and we need to have more men speak out about this -- especially to other men.

I never called women botched men or simple creatures, or said that they are inferior, God made them for a different purpose apart from men, men must lead civilizations but women must lead children up to the point that the child is taken by their father, becomes a man, and then helps to lead civilization. Women shine as mothers, and God equipped them for this function. The more women try to take on men's roles, the more the body cannibalizes itself and women become unhappy, because they are not men and God has not and will never make them as he made men.

Women are more emotional than men, and prone to subjective truths because women do not have muscles and are easily overpowered, therefor the woman specializes in what the society deems acceptable, because her strength is her social standing and how well her reputation holds up, this is an example of subjective truth. What the group believes is true = what she believes, because that is what holds social power -- which is why women excell at language and communication, this however makes it difficult for them to find the truth, as throughout human history it could well kill them to go against social norms. Whereas a male exciled from the tribe has a chance to survive, women do not owing to their fragile bodies.    

"Behold, I have discovered this," says the Preacher, "adding one thing to another to find an explanation, 28which I am still seeking but have not found. I have found one man among a thousand, but I have not found a woman among all these. 29" -- Ecclesiastes 7:28

The teacher in Ecclesiastes had a lot of trouble finding righteous women, that doesn't mean they don't exist, they're just rarer than men owing to the hierarchy of love and the proximity men have to God. This doesn't mean that God does not love you as he loves men, but that you serve a different function in the hierarchy of love.  

"For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." -- Corinthians 14:34

The bible acknowledges women's troubles with subjective truth, it's not their fault; God made them this way as her subjective truth must become the husbands objective truth (which is why God places them as priests), and the husbands objective truth must become God's ABSOLUTE truth. This is how God intended the hierarchy of love to work.  

On 11/27/2017 at 11:15 PM, Yowm said:

Miss ah gymnast? Umm, no.

Gal 3:28
(28)  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
 

 

Sorry I did not see the post (i depend too much on alerts), We are one in Christ -- in Love. God loves us all equally but we do not serve equally, we are equal in love, but NOT in hierarchy. 

Heaven is a family after all, and a family, by definition, must have hierarchy. God loves women just as he loves the men. God loves the toe as much as he loves the foot, but they all obey a hierarchy and different functions owing to that hierarchy. 

No matter what the foot may think, it can never become a hand. Which is essentially my point, men are closer to the head (God), In the body of Christ, which is why they need to serve as spiritual leaders of the civilization.

Again, this is the fulfillment of the Hierarchy of love, which will exist in heaven just as it does on earth. 

God
Man
Woman
Child