Jump to content
IGNORED

PAUL, A MISOGYNIST?


chikachuks1

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,573
  • Content Per Day:  0.52
  • Reputation:   723
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/10/2015
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/20/2017 at 4:04 PM, chikachuks1 said:

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).

You have to understand that in those days, as in some countries even today, women sat apart from men in churches and women were rarely educated. And so women might get tempted to shout across to their male family members if they didnt understand something in the service.

I once read a more modern day example, of a church in Africa where, again, the uneducated women sat apart from the men and something came up that one girl didnt understand and so she called out to one of her girlfriends, What does it mean? The other one answered It mean (this)...another one shouted out No it means this, yet another called out No it mean this......just being generally disruptive to the service.

So this admonition of Paul wasnt being disrespectful to women but was nothing more than a gentle rebuke to them to not disrupt the service and if they have a problem with something, then they should ask their husbands at a more appropriate time and place.

And as for the part about Paul not permitting women to teach or usurp authority over men, well, we have to remember there is a recognised hierarchy in the church, and just as Christ, a male, is the head, symbolically men are representative of Christ in the church. God chooses women leaders to teach women and children and cannot teach men exept when and where no good men can be found.

 

Edited by TheMatrixHasU71
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  110
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   50
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/21/2018
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/20/2017 at 3:04 PM, chikachuks1 said:

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

I think it is easy for people to attach such an accusation against the Apostle because it takes more to realize Paul was no such thing at all. Paul wasn't saying women have no voice in God's church. He was telling women, in a segregated church environment where men and women were often seated separately to avoid distractions with one another from the word being taught, that the women should not ask for clarification of a teachings points while in the church. Which often happened in that day. Sort of like a question and answer session in lecture series now. 

Rather, they should wait until they can inquire of their husbands for clarification later. 

The system Jesus was born into was strict patriarchal with defined roles for men and women, deemed lesser vessels. Jesus however was a revolutionary in that regard, as we learn when he had women walking with him in his ministry. The Magdalene, his mother Mary, as example. This being something that would not have been witnessed of the Rabbi's serving the temple at that time. 

A woman discovered the tomb empty remember. And she went to the upper room to inform the Apostles of Jesus body having gone missing. Mary the Magdalene informed the males in that upper chamber and they in turn followed her to the tomb to see for themselves. Women in that era did not lead men to do anything. But these men having been taught by God himself in Jesus were different. 

And of course as you note, women did minister the Gospel's good news after Jesus returned to the Father. Though there are critics that will try to lay claim that those verses do not refer to women as pastors. When in fact the word pastor no more existed in that era than did the word, trinity. And yet, Trinity is bandied about in the Christian church as a known fact without issue. 

Therefore, when God's word tells us women were ordained by the holy spirit to deliver the Gospel good news , I would suggest that being Biblical factual history that if you encounter that which attempts to disparage women as true pastors today, that it may be wise to realize the M word likely resides within them. Because Paul also stated there is no Jew, Greek, male , nor female, but that we are all one in Christ Jesus. 

When Paul states we are all one in Christ, then those one's who are women serving God's purpose in the pulpit today are one of His chosen to be there. And that there is one at all rebukes any naysayers who would dare lay claim they know better than the God that called them to that service. As if sex precludes someone from being a servant of the creator. Those one's are in need of having their eyes opened to the true word of Christ. Who by his living example served the Father with women in his company. Something the patriarchal system of the time, like those naysayers referred to today, would never concede was proper in the eyes of their ideal God. However, Jesus, Emmanuel, God with us, showed them the truth. Woe to those who deny the truth then. And now. 

 

You'll never convince someone opposed to women being servants of God to think otherwise. It is they who do not respect God's will. For the truth is not in them. That God's truth is within women who serve his purpose is all that is important.

Edited by Rut-Ro
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  3,776
  • Content Per Day:  1.29
  • Reputation:   4,746
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/31/2016
  • Status:  Offline

Nobody ever read the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 14 when they want to admonish women.  

Try reading the whole chapter.  He speaks of three groups of people who need to stop talking when the worship service is going on.  Women trying to talk out loud to their husbands and asking questions out loud/being distracting is the third group.

He tells two other groups to "keep silent" which include both women and men.  Why don't ever talk about them and what the context of chapter 14 is about?

[I'll give you a hint.  His letter is to a church that is in a hot mess and a disorderly worship service was just one of their many problems.]

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  68
  • Topic Count:  185
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  14,204
  • Content Per Day:  3.35
  • Reputation:   16,629
  • Days Won:  30
  • Joined:  08/14/2012
  • Status:  Offline

There must be order in the home as well as in the church.  Part of honoring our husbands is respecting their authority in our homes, and we honor our pastors in somewhat the same way (even though our pastor does not consider himself to be elevated above his congregation and wants to be addressed by his first name and not as pastor). 

Order in our home meant he had the last word which I respected.  He also delegated responsibilities.  As helpmeets we are responsible for giving our input and wisdom from our perspective.  

In the church it is very rude for women to be whispering and talking so as to make it hard for those around her to hear the sermon.  She has no business checking her email and messages, or exchanging photos during this time as well.  She would do better to focus on the sermon and to even make notes, so if she has questions she can ask later.  

I don't understand this order of love business since in heaven there is neither male nor female.  God loves us all equally in that respect.  There is an order but our God is a God of order, and anarchy is antiGod.  Rebellion is as witchcraft.  Keeping peace is inherent in godly order.  Being 4th in the line of order does not mean that women are any less than men in worth.  It is bigotry to consider all women as being emotional and not logical.   The OP was very well done and objective.  Yes God is the author, but even He spoke within the framework of the problem and the culture.  

 

  • Brilliant! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...