Paul and Women

[jasonc]

interesting shift from Judaism as the rabbis were men only and one of the sages being an exception a daughter or a sage whom read his comments and studied the tanach. women today in Chassidic Judaism aren't taught the torah/tanach as men are.

 

[Deborah13]

jasonc

Yep, Jesus and Paul treated woman very differently then the rabbis did.

 

[JCitoL]

Paul said that younger women should learn from the older women.
Or if those weren't there it would be men in leadership.

and from whom should the older/oldest women learn, after the first members of the Christ's church were men?!

Blessings

 

[Deborah13]

and from whom should the older/oldest women learn, after the first members of the Christ's church were men?!

Blessings

Well that was a very short time wasn't it? Seeing the Apostles taught everyone! And there were woman listening to Jesus even before that.
Just how silly do we want to be.
Lets' skip right backwards, We All learn from God/Jesus/Holy Spirit

 

[JCitoL]

Well that was a very short time wasn't it? Seeing the Apostles taught everyone! And there were woman listening to Jesus even before that.
Just how silly do we want to be.
Lets' skip right backwards, We All learn from God/Jesus/Holy Spirit

yes, and Jesus also was a male, but there is no tradition to dispute about such things

Blessings

 

[Deborah13]

yes, and Jesus also was a male, but there is no tradition to dispute about such things

Blessings

Blessings to you also.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Why did Paul say this?:

[33] As in all the churches of the saints,
[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
[35] 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.
[36] What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached? 1 Cor 14:33b-36 RSV

It's interesting what happens when one removes this section.

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.

The remarks on women are completely out of context with the flow of Paul's thoughts here, and when we remove the text we see it clearly that it does not belong. Further evidence is that this portion is missing in some manuscripts and in different places in others.

This to me is a clear interpolation, not written by Paul.

 

[Deborah13]

It's interesting what happens when one removes this section.

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.

The remarks on women are completely out of context with the flow of Paul's thoughts here, and when we remove the text we see it clearly that it does not belong. Further evidence is that this portion is missing in some manuscripts and in different places in others.

This to me is a clear interpolation, not written by Paul.

That is interesting. This is the way Young's Literal Translation breaks up those verses.

1Co 14:32 and the spiritual gift of prophets to prophets are subject,
1Co 14:33 for God is not a God of tumult, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints.

1Co 14:34 Your women in the assemblies let them be silent, for it hath not been permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith;
1Co 14:35 and if they wish to learn anything, at home their own husbands let them question, for it is a shame to women to speak in an assembly.

1Co 14:36 From you did the word of God come forth? or to you alone did it come?
1Co 14:37 if any one doth think to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him

 

[Butch5]

the word their prophecy is to teach. read what the rest of the bible says on that. I don't allow a woman to usurp authority over a man.

I understand the context of that, but we must also balance the idea that a pastor is head of the congregation right? what if in that instance he receives a word from a prophetess? who has the authority then? he or she?

Hi Jason,

Actually, I don't agree that a pastor is the head of the congregation. In the apostolic churches there was plurality of elders, not a lead pastor. I agree that a woman is not top usurp the authority of a man. However, as I said, I think Paul was dealing with a specific issue in this case.

 

[jasonc]

the modern church does that. theres really not much on types of leadership. if we followed that , home churches. they are grey areas but there is a head to any church. elders appoint a pastor these days. the apostles had a part then but they aren't here. not all elders can lead or teach.

 

[Butch5]

the modern church does that. theres really not much on types of leadership. if we followed that , home churches. they are grey areas but there is a head to any church. elders appoint a pastor these days. the apostles had a part then but they aren't here. not all elders can lead or teach.

I understand that but I don't see where anyone has the authority to change what the apostles established. I realize that most churches do have a single head but it's not what the apostles established.

 

[jasonc]

I understand that but I don't see where anyone has the authority to change what the apostles established. I realize that most churches do have a single head but it's not what the apostles established.

the apostles didn't leave much. name any style of authorative words on how a church is ordain leaders. not by oral means as that is what they did in acts. we did this or that. I listened to a pastor about that and he went into the different styles of leadership in churches. elders, deacons, bishops and what not.all can be validated, none are mandated. that's the problem.

should the church do home churches? that is what they did then? its not written but its implied. there were no bldgs. of ekklesia that was called el edificio inglesia.(church building in Spanish)

 

[evenifigoalone]

I pretty much agree with this: http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html
Very long article, but it addresses the Pauline passages on women. Without dismissing Paul or making him out to be a misogynist.

 

[for_his_glory]

imo, this is a very good post.
I also had studied out the name of 'Junia' if I remember correctly not only would it have been spelled as you say but there was found no record of a male being named in any writings from the time that corresponds to the female Junia where usually there is. Such as Michael is to Michelle.
Archeology has also born witness to women in leadership position. One such is an excavation of an old cemetery site. A headstone was found engraved for a daughter who's mother was Lois, the presbytary.
I think you may enjoy this site and be able to refer to many things in the text, not just those about women. It was/is written by a man over several years adding to it and addressing issues that Christian have written to him about. But I will give the link to one of the articles about Jesus/Paul and women.
http://www.christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

Thank you for the link as I will bookmark it and read through it later as it's a pretty long read.

 

[Sinthesis]

Paul says, Learn from Your husbands at home. This isn't about women teaching or challenging it's about asking questions.

1Co 14:35 and if they wish to learn anything, at home their own husbands let them question, for it is a shame to women to speak in an assembly.

The whole chapter is about orderly conduct in the church.

Yes, it is just acknowledging the prevailing Corinthian/Jewish social/family structure at the time, and accommodating it to spread the Gospel in an orderly way. It doesn't really say this is the only way, or even the best way to achieve the goal of spreading the Gospel. So we shouldn't blindly try to ape the social conventions that were common two thousand years ago before the Gospel had it's chance to change society.

 

[Stan1953]

Why did Paul say this?:
[33] As in all the churches of the saints,
[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
[35] 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.
[36] What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached? 1 Cor 14:33b-36 RSV

The key to understanding the above verses is v36, followed by 37-38. Paul is quoting what someone had written him, and here he is dealing with their misunderstanding.
V39 makes it obvious that he was not saying women could not speak in church when he says there; Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

I think a woman without a husband, in 'Bible' times, would still be in her father's home, and would be subject to her father and would ask him. (obviously not in the usa, or today in many places).

also, one very uncomfortable note (most will probably say 'subjective'; that's okay) In all my years, in all my travels, in all my searching and learning and seeking God's face to know the truth, I have never seen a
divorced woman(who was willing to be divorced) able to faithfully(reliably)separate what is true from what is false in sometimes important revelations of, ideas about, and general scriptural discussions. t to be his comes out in conversations, speeches, teachings, radio, tv, church, and synagogue - i.e. no matter where she is, my observation is that what she says cannot be trusted much more often than 'usual'. I haven't met or seen an exception to this yet. (most will probably say 'subjective'; Yhwh knows.) . Admittedly, in today's society including religious groups, it is rare to find someone, man or woman, who simply always tells the truth and is always loyal to God.

there's a lot more in Scripture concerning this, enough for several threads.... one at a time (some are already started, i think) .

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

........two thousand years ago before the Gospel had it's chance to change society.

well, I guess the Gospel did have a 'chance' to change society. or to change a few people anyway. but in Israel today and in other places where they guard and keep Scripture, their lives(those who keep Scripture faithfully) are, I think, much more better in every way as God sees it, to God first, and also to men.

i.e. I don't see improvement in society. instead, i see wickedness being filled up in line with what Scripture says(I go look it up now), be back in a few, Yhwh willing to insert the reference.
>>> here it is(one of them) >>>
2 Timothy 3:2-4
Amplified Bible (AMP)

2 For people will be lovers of self and [utterly] self-centered, lovers of money and aroused by an inordinate [greedy] desire for wealth, proud and arrogant and contemptuous boasters. They will be abusive (blasphemous, scoffing), disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy and profane.

3 [They will be] without natural [human] affection (callous and inhuman), relentless (admitting of no truce or appeasement); [they will be] slanderers (false accusers, troublemakers), intemperate and loose in morals and conduct, uncontrolled and fierce, haters of good.

4 [They will be] treacherous [betrayers], rash, [and] inflated with self-conceit. [They will be] lovers of sensual pleasures and vain amusements more than and rather than lovers of God.

.

 

[for_his_glory]

I think a woman without a husband, in 'Bible' times, would still be in her father's home, and would be subject to her father and would ask him. (obviously not in the usa, or today in many places).

also, one very uncomfortable note (most will probably say 'subjective'; that's okay) In all my years, in all my travels, in all my searching and learning and seeking God's face to know the truth, I have never seen a
divorced woman(who was willing to be divorced) able to faithfully(reliably)separate what is true from what is false in sometimes important revelations of, ideas about, and general scriptural discussions. t to be his comes out in conversations, speeches, teachings, radio, tv, church, and synagogue - i.e. no matter where she is, my observation is that what she says cannot be trusted much more often than 'usual'. I haven't met or seen an exception to this yet. (most will probably say 'subjective'; Yhwh knows.) . Admittedly, in today's society including religious groups, it is rare to find someone, man or woman, who simply always tells the truth and is always loyal to God.

there's a lot more in Scripture concerning this, enough for several threads.... one at a time (some are already started, i think) .

Excuse me, allow me to introduce myself as I am that women that has been divorced twice and now married to a wonderful man that God has given me. I am very much in the word of God seeking and teaching truth by that of the Holy Spirit teaching me so your theory is not correct as there are many women who have been divorced that God uses in a mighty way to bring His word to the world in all truths.

 

[Sinthesis]

well, I guess the Gospel did have a 'chance' to change society. or to change a few people anyway. but in Israel today and in other places where they guard and keep Scripture, their lives(those who keep Scripture faithfully) are, I think, much more better in every way as God sees it, to God first, and also to men.

i.e. I don't see improvement in society. instead, i see wickedness being filled up in line with what Scripture says(I go look it up now), be back in a few, Yhwh willing to insert the reference.
>>> here it is(one of them) >>>
2 Timothy 3:2-4
Amplified Bible (AMP)

2 For people will be lovers of self and [utterly] self-centered, lovers of money and aroused by an inordinate [greedy] desire for wealth, proud and arrogant and contemptuous boasters. They will be abusive (blasphemous, scoffing), disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy and profane.

3 [They will be] without natural [human] affection (callous and inhuman), relentless (admitting of no truce or appeasement); [they will be] slanderers (false accusers, troublemakers), intemperate and loose in morals and conduct, uncontrolled and fierce, haters of good.

4 [They will be] treacherous [betrayers], rash, [and] inflated with self-conceit. [They will be] lovers of sensual pleasures and vain amusements more than and rather than lovers of God.

.

Are you saying you believe our global society as a whole has been in decline ever since the advent of Christianity?