Many women love Paul. Here is his advice in 1 Timothy: 2, 9:
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly array;
11. Let woman learn in silence with all subjection
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach
Does this advice undermine your confidence in Paul?
Does it make you think twice about his Damascus escapade?
Or does Paul have a point?
Should we take Paul seriously?
Moderator: Moderators
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21144
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 795 times
- Been thanked: 1129 times
- Contact:
Re: Should we take Paul seriously?
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by marco]
Does this advice undermine your confidence in Paul? No
- Paul's writings are part of inspired scripture and I believe the ideas and instructions of God. I have absolute confidence in the bible and in the writings of Paul which make up part of that.
Does it make you think twice about his Damascus escapade? No. (see above)
Further, those in the first century would have been in a better position to assertain if Paul was a Charatan (or as some initially suspected) a spy spinning false stories. The written testimonies of Peter and Luke (a travelling companion) as well as the esteem in which he was held by the Christian congregation and the leading men of the Christian community at the time, testifies that that confidence is well placed.
Or does Paul have a point? Yes.
An examination of the a parallel text at 1 Corinthians 14:34 shows Paul was not referring to women speaking in general, but referring to how things should be organised 'in all the congregations'
QUESTION: Does this mean that a woman can never speak in a meeting of the congregation? No, it cannot mean that. Back there the women as well as the men received the gifts of the spirit, including those of speaking in tongues and prophesying, and these would require them to speak in the congregation. Further more, if this passage is understood to maintain aboluter literal silence no woman at "Church" discipline their children, hush their babies, tell someone they are going out to use the toilet, sing any of the hymnes or say "AMEN" at the end of the prayer. Logic dictates Paul was speaking in relative terms meaning women can speak or give testimony at congregational meetings as well as participate in studies and discussions but not challenge the speakers or take a position of leadership when teaching.
QUESTION: So would that mean a woman would never teach?
No, Christian women work along with men in public teaching and preaching to both males and females (Math 28: 19, 20); Both Aquila and his wife Priscilla gavein-depth instruction to Apollos. Paul himself said he worked "shoulder to shoulder" with several christian women.
So in what sense were they to keep silent in the congregations? Evidently in those cases where to speak would be to show a lack of subjection. Note: This would be the case for BOTH men and women in regard to those taking the lead in the congregation. ALL are called to be in submission.
QUESTION: But doesn't the principle of submission degrade women?
No more than being in submission to the law degrades the general population. That God gives the privilege (not the right) of leadership exclusively to men reflects His desire for order, and his insight as to the needed qualities for that particular office.
So Paul's admonision for women to remain "silent" applies only in the congregation in the sence that they should respect the god given order of things and in no way reflects a lack of regard for their value.
RELATED POSTS
How does the bible command husbands to treat their wives?
viewtopic.php?p=1057767#p1057767
Does this advice undermine your confidence in Paul? No
- Paul's writings are part of inspired scripture and I believe the ideas and instructions of God. I have absolute confidence in the bible and in the writings of Paul which make up part of that.
Does it make you think twice about his Damascus escapade? No. (see above)
Further, those in the first century would have been in a better position to assertain if Paul was a Charatan (or as some initially suspected) a spy spinning false stories. The written testimonies of Peter and Luke (a travelling companion) as well as the esteem in which he was held by the Christian congregation and the leading men of the Christian community at the time, testifies that that confidence is well placed.
Or does Paul have a point? Yes.
Many people take objection to the bibles instruction found at 1 Timothy 2:11-13 calling for women to "“..learn in silence with full submissiveness They claim this reflects a disregard or distain for women. Was Paul saying that women should never speak or that women are obliged to do everything that a man says.#QUESTION: Did the Apostle Paul mean for women never to utter a word in church?
An examination of the a parallel text at 1 Corinthians 14:34 shows Paul was not referring to women speaking in general, but referring to how things should be organised 'in all the congregations'
QUESTION: Does this mean that a woman can never speak in a meeting of the congregation? No, it cannot mean that. Back there the women as well as the men received the gifts of the spirit, including those of speaking in tongues and prophesying, and these would require them to speak in the congregation. Further more, if this passage is understood to maintain aboluter literal silence no woman at "Church" discipline their children, hush their babies, tell someone they are going out to use the toilet, sing any of the hymnes or say "AMEN" at the end of the prayer. Logic dictates Paul was speaking in relative terms meaning women can speak or give testimony at congregational meetings as well as participate in studies and discussions but not challenge the speakers or take a position of leadership when teaching.
QUESTION: So would that mean a woman would never teach?
No, Christian women work along with men in public teaching and preaching to both males and females (Math 28: 19, 20); Both Aquila and his wife Priscilla gavein-depth instruction to Apollos. Paul himself said he worked "shoulder to shoulder" with several christian women.
So in what sense were they to keep silent in the congregations? Evidently in those cases where to speak would be to show a lack of subjection. Note: This would be the case for BOTH men and women in regard to those taking the lead in the congregation. ALL are called to be in submission.
QUESTION: But doesn't the principle of submission degrade women?
No more than being in submission to the law degrades the general population. That God gives the privilege (not the right) of leadership exclusively to men reflects His desire for order, and his insight as to the needed qualities for that particular office.
So Paul's admonision for women to remain "silent" applies only in the congregation in the sence that they should respect the god given order of things and in no way reflects a lack of regard for their value.
RELATED POSTS
How does the bible command husbands to treat their wives?
viewtopic.php?p=1057767#p1057767
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:23 am, edited 3 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
Re: Should we take Paul seriously?
Post #3[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]
I congratulate you on your deft handling of Paul's apparent misogynism. It is clever to suppose that when Paul says "women" he means men and women. Instead of extracting meaning from what he says, you point to examples in practice that appear to contradict Paul's advice which means Paul didn't mean what we think he meant.
You ignore his instructions about ladies wearing gold or pearls, so perhaps you share his views there. Why would a messenger of God want to say such a thing?
I congratulate you on your deft handling of Paul's apparent misogynism. It is clever to suppose that when Paul says "women" he means men and women. Instead of extracting meaning from what he says, you point to examples in practice that appear to contradict Paul's advice which means Paul didn't mean what we think he meant.
You ignore his instructions about ladies wearing gold or pearls, so perhaps you share his views there. Why would a messenger of God want to say such a thing?
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21144
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 795 times
- Been thanked: 1129 times
- Contact:
Re: Should we take Paul seriously?
Post #4Yes, sorry, I see I overlooked that, my bad. See below.marco wrote: You ignore his instructions about ladies wearing gold or pearls
QUESTION: Are the Apostles Peter and Paul prohibiting the wearing of gold and the braiding of hair?1 TIMOTHY 2:9
Likewise, the women should adorn themselves in appropriate dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive clothing
1 PETER 3:3, 4
Do not let your adornment be external—the braiding of hair and the wearing of gold ornaments or fine clothing 4 but let it be the secret person of the heart in the incorruptible adornment of the quiet and mild spirit,+ which is of great value in the eyes of God
No. Fistly notice both are speaking about "adornment"; to adornment is what someone does or wears to be more attractive, so both the Apostle Peter and Paul are highlighting what makes a woman truly attractive and contrasts this with the elaborate hairstyles and expensive dress of their day. Bible commentators, such as Adam Clarke, tell of the elaborate coiffures, or braiding of the hair and interspersing it with gold ornaments, that were the vogue among pagan women in the days of the apostles and is was against such showy displays that both Paul and Peter spoke.
That Paul was not speaking making blanket prohibition on all Jewellery or hairdressing is seen from that fact that Paul pointed specifically to individuals such as Abraham, Jacob and Joseph as being worthy of imitation, yet Abraham sent is daughter in law (Rebecca) gold Jewellry [see Gen 24:22, 52-53 compare Heb 11:8], Jacob had a special coat made for his son and Joseph accepted a necklace of gold [Genesis 41:41-42 compare Heb 11: 20, 21]. Rather than prohibiting the use of jewellry or hairstyles, Pauls is stating that such things should not be a Christians womans chief adornment promoting good sense and moderation when it comes to dress and grooming.
RELATED POSTS
Did Jesus have long hair?
viewtopic.php?p=947656#p947656
What did Jesus look like?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 94#p925494
What did Paul mean that "nature" teaches us about hair?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p814927
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 44#p866744
Are the Apostles Peter and Paul prohibiting the wearing of gold and the braiding of hair?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 31#p797831
Why did Paul speak of long hair only for women since Samson had long hair?
viewtopic.php?p=1088325#p1088325
To learn more please go to other posts related to...
JESUS CHRIST, APPEARANCE, and ...JEHOVAH'S WITNESS ARTWORK
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6443
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 324 times
- Contact:
Re: Should we take Paul seriously?
Post #5Peace to you Marco!
[Replying to post 1 by marco]
Many think Paul is writing scripture with every word. That every word is inspired, even though he clearly states himself that it is not.
1Corinthians 7:10 - To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):
1Corinthians 7:12 - To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):
Many seem to think that every word and every letter from Paul was meant to be applicable to all Christians, instead of considering the fact that Paul wrote to specific people on specific issues on a the specific time period.
The head covering during prayer for women was an issue that was brought to Paul, for instance. (He responds as though he is answering a question asked of him) He responds with information that could be taken either way, leaving it for people to work out for themselves.
....Yes sure women should cover their heads because of the angels (whatever that means). But wait... hmm... wasn't long hair given to woman as a covering?...
So that was my summary, lol... but some of the actual verses that seem to always get left out when someone wants to promote that women need a physical head covering of some sort:
Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
And no, the very nature of things as I understand nature does not teach that long hair on a man is a disgrace, because the very nature of things shows that men and women grow hair at an equal rate. Tradition might teach this however, particularly in a culture under Roman influence. Hence, the people he was speaking to might teach and believe this as well, and he might have been reasoning with them accordingly.
And a woman who is in the Lord never prays with her head uncovered to begin with, because Christ IS her head. Both men and women make up the body and bride of Christ - and Christ is the head of His Body and His Bride.
**
To the issue of the OP specifically:
As far as I understand (and orthodox Judaism still teaches if I am not mistaken), women are not permitted to speak in the synagogue, nor have authority over a man.
So perhaps Paul still had a hang-up leftover from his days as a Pharisee. Or perhaps he was protecting the Christian congregation(s) from those Jews persecuting Jewish Christians. Just as he once did, himself.
Specific issue to a specific people in a specific time period.
Nor is Paul around to explain his letters that "contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2Peter 3:16)
In any case, I do not doubt his road to Damascus experience or that he belongs to Christ. But Christ is my Lord.
Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
[Replying to post 1 by marco]
Many think Paul is writing scripture with every word. That every word is inspired, even though he clearly states himself that it is not.
1Corinthians 7:10 - To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):
1Corinthians 7:12 - To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):
Many seem to think that every word and every letter from Paul was meant to be applicable to all Christians, instead of considering the fact that Paul wrote to specific people on specific issues on a the specific time period.
The head covering during prayer for women was an issue that was brought to Paul, for instance. (He responds as though he is answering a question asked of him) He responds with information that could be taken either way, leaving it for people to work out for themselves.
....Yes sure women should cover their heads because of the angels (whatever that means). But wait... hmm... wasn't long hair given to woman as a covering?...
So that was my summary, lol... but some of the actual verses that seem to always get left out when someone wants to promote that women need a physical head covering of some sort:
Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
And no, the very nature of things as I understand nature does not teach that long hair on a man is a disgrace, because the very nature of things shows that men and women grow hair at an equal rate. Tradition might teach this however, particularly in a culture under Roman influence. Hence, the people he was speaking to might teach and believe this as well, and he might have been reasoning with them accordingly.
And a woman who is in the Lord never prays with her head uncovered to begin with, because Christ IS her head. Both men and women make up the body and bride of Christ - and Christ is the head of His Body and His Bride.
**
To the issue of the OP specifically:
As far as I understand (and orthodox Judaism still teaches if I am not mistaken), women are not permitted to speak in the synagogue, nor have authority over a man.
So perhaps Paul still had a hang-up leftover from his days as a Pharisee. Or perhaps he was protecting the Christian congregation(s) from those Jews persecuting Jewish Christians. Just as he once did, himself.
Specific issue to a specific people in a specific time period.
Nor is Paul around to explain his letters that "contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2Peter 3:16)
In any case, I do not doubt his road to Damascus experience or that he belongs to Christ. But Christ is my Lord.
Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
-
Checkpoint
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Re: Should we take Paul seriously?
Post #6marco wrote: [Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]
You got that right. What is "apparent" to you is not what it is, as pointed out by JW.I congratulate you on your deft handling of Paul's apparent misogynism.
The one who is being "clever" is you, because you do not recognise the meaning given to you.It is clever to suppose that when Paul says "women" he means men and women.
As I said above.Instead of extracting meaning from what he says,Again, what may "appear to" you is not what is.you point to examples in practice that appear to contradict Paul's advice
Not what "we think" but what you think.which means Paul didn't mean what we think he meant.
Perhaps. So?You ignore his instructions about ladies wearing gold or pearls, so perhaps you share his views there.
Anyone who is a "messenger of God" will share views others find bothersome.Why would a messenger of God want to say such a thing?
That's why you write as you do, Marco.
-
OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 67 times
- Contact:
Post #7
In my mind the biggest reason not to take Paul seriously is that he truly believed he was living in the end times. He even made the claim that the gospel had been preached to every living creature under the sun.
He believed he had preached the gospel to the ENTIRE world. He was clearly deluded. At the very least he was grossly mistaken. So if he can be so grossly mistaken about that... and that Jesus was going to return in his life time, why would we take anything he said seriously?
The sexism I can kind of excuse. After all the bible God himself seems very sexist. So Paul was just following his lead. However he was completely wrong about the return of Jesus.
He believed he had preached the gospel to the ENTIRE world. He was clearly deluded. At the very least he was grossly mistaken. So if he can be so grossly mistaken about that... and that Jesus was going to return in his life time, why would we take anything he said seriously?
The sexism I can kind of excuse. After all the bible God himself seems very sexist. So Paul was just following his lead. However he was completely wrong about the return of Jesus.
Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.
Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.
There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.
Check out my website: Recker's World
Re: Should we take Paul seriously?
Post #8Yes, excess and ostentation are not appropriate, I agree. If that was the object of Paul's objection I'm sure there are words that would better render his viewpoint. Your generous explanation of Paul's meaning would suggest that Paul was deficient in making his point clear, but I would never accuse him of that. I think Paul is certainly one person who means what he says and says what he means. I don't know if Adam Clarke possesses the same facundity.JehovahsWitness wrote:
Bible commentators, such as Adam Clarke, tell of the elaborate coiffures, or braiding of the hair and interspersing it with gold ornaments, that were the vogue among pagan women in the days of the apostles and it was against such showy displays that both Paul and Peter spoke.
Re: Should we take Paul seriously?
Post #9And peace to you too, tam. Always a pleasure to hear your point of view and in this case I accept what you say regarding Paul.tam wrote:
Peace to you Marco!
Many think Paul is writing scripture with every word. That every word is inspired, even though he clearly states himself that it is not.
Whether you do, your own discernment is a fine guiding light in that you do not follow ideas slavishly because they are written down. Those I love do not share my views but love is stronger than a notion that might well be born of idle conceit on my part. Warm regards.tam wrote:
In any case, I do not doubt his road to Damascus experience or that he belongs to Christ.
Re: Should we take Paul seriously?
Post #10It is a very wise man who converts "it appears" into "it is certain."
I have never knowingly arrogated myself to the office of messenger of God. I write as I do partly to get information but occasionally, with the info, comes a little mockery. When Cyrus the Great got unpleasant news he speared the messenger but I wish you well. We cannot always agree.Checkpoint wrote:
Anyone who is a "messenger of God" will share views others find bothersome.
That's why you write as you do, Marco.
