Women are forbidden to teach publicly

[scr]

That title should generate some interest.

I am currently researching this topic and am interested in some of the arguments for women clergy. The bible is clear on this topic, yet there appear to be no shortage of women pastors in the (Methodist, among others) Church.

Note in particular, two fairly specific passages written by the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”(1 Tim 2:11-15).

“For God is not a God of disorder, but a God of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 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. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.”(1 Corinthians 14:33-38)

I am curious as to how this apparent incongruity is dealt with in the (Methodist) churches where women are currently presiding as ordained leaders of the congregation.


Thanks,
scr

 

[Espada]

People like their human traditions!

 

[justified]

On 1 Cor. 14, did you ever find it funny that earlier in the book Paul is arguing that women who pray and prophesy in the church must have their heads covered? Interesting that he says "be silent" and "prophesy" in the same book.

That's what you know. What you probably don't know is even more fascinating.

 

[5stringJeff]

That title should generate some interest.

I am currently researching this topic and am interested in some of the arguments for women clergy. The bible is clear on this topic, yet there appear to be no shortage of women pastors in the (Methodist, among others) Church.

Note in particular, two fairly specific passages written by the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”(1 Tim 2:11-15).

“For God is not a God of disorder, but a God of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 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. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.”(1 Corinthians 14:33-38)

I am curious as to how this apparent incongruity is dealt with in the (Methodist) churches where women are currently presiding as ordained leaders of the congregation.


Thanks,
scr

Note that Paul says that "I do not permit a woman to teach..." This is not without precedent. Elsewhere, Paul differentiates between his commands and the Lord's commands. So if Paul personally didn't permit a woman to teach, I don't see that as binding on the Church.

 

[scr]

On 1 Cor. 14, did you ever find it funny that earlier in the book Paul is arguing that women who pray and prophesy in the church must have their heads covered? Interesting that he says "be silent" and "prophesy" in the same book.

Hi,

Neither prayer nor prophesying require an audible voice. They should not be considered every day teaching or preaching either. Both could conceivably be done quietly, in church or anywhere else for that matter.

According to Numbers 12, to prophesy is to receive a vision or a dream from God. Deut 13 says the same thing. Prophets typically received a specific message from God for a specific purpose. The prophet was a different position than a Levitical priest; more of a specialist, vs a day to day minister. A female prophet is no new thing either. About 1/8 of the OT prophets, seven to be exact, were women, or prophetesses. Among them were Sarah (wife of Abraham), Deborah(judge), Hannah(Samuel's mother), Abigail, Huldah(message to King Josiah), Esther, and Miriam(Aaron's wife).
Noadiah and Jezebel are also referred to as OT prophetesses, but of a somewhat more dubious stature.

In the NT, there was Anna (prophesied about Christ), and four unnamed prophetesses (Acts 21) at the very least. There appears to be no quarrel with the fact that women can prophesy, yet as you point out, the Apostle makes the very clear and unambiguous statement about women not being allowed to teach men.

I have spoken to several women over the past couple of months about this topic, including a woman who has been a Methodist minister for 20 years who is absolutely convinced that we mustn't take the Apostle Paul literally when he says women are forbidden to teach publicly. I have understood and researched all the arguments for women clergy that I have heard to date. Quite frankly I am fishing for more with this post.

scr

 

[scr]

Note that Paul says that "I do not permit a woman to teach..." This is not without precedent. Elsewhere, Paul differentiates between his commands and the Lord's commands. So if Paul personally didn't permit a woman to teach, I don't see that as binding on the Church.

Hello,

You are correct that Paul differentiates between that which the Lord commands and that which he had no command to pass on. In fact he goes out of his way to do this in 1 Corinthians 7. In verse 10 he predicates his statement by declaring it to be of the Lord. In verse 12 he makes the distinction that by contrast he has received no instruction one way or the other and is acting on his authority as an apostle appointed by Jesus Christ. No such distinction is made in chapter 14, nor 1 Tim 2, therefore it is difficult for me to see the connection you are attempting to make. Quite frankly, I don't see the where his words could be anything but binding to the Church.

scr

 

[Blackhawk]

“For God is not a God of disorder, but a God of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 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. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.”(1 Corinthians 14:33-38)

I am curious as to how this apparent incongruity is dealt with in the (Methodist) churches where women are currently presiding as ordained leaders of the congregation.


Thanks,
scr

Well first I ave often heard that what Paul is commenting on and to a particular church with particular problems. And was not meaning for it to be an instruction for the whole universal church.

also look how the NASB divides verse 33 AND 34.

33for God is not a God of (BC)confusion but of peace, as in (BD)all the churches of the (BE)saints.


34The women are to (BF)keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but (BG)are to subject themselves, just as (BH)the Law also says.





There is a big difference than the version you quoted. The Greek manuscripts we have do not have any breaks.



It is like this (except they are in Greek):



FORGODISNOTAGODOFCONFUSIONBUTOFPEACEASINALLTHECHURCHESTHEWOMENARETOKEEPSILENTINTHECHURCHES



Greek NTs, like the one I bought last month, have breaks in them and thus are basically an interpreation from the original greek texts.

 

[scr]

Well first I ave often heard that what Paul is commenting on and to a particular church with particular problems. And was not meaning for it to be an instruction for the whole universal church.

also look how the NASB divides verse 33 AND 34.

Hello Blackhawk,

I have pulled out my Interlinear NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English. That's the best I can do on the Greek NT. I dont see any difference in the context or meaning of any of the translations. I am not certain what difference a carriage return or two would make. I note that your interpretation is of a singular church but every translation I read has the church listed as plural, which serves to further justify the classic interpretation. Can you please clarify your point? I just can't figure out a way to read 14:33-35 that doesn't say women should keep silent in churches. Even when I read that jumble that you stuck all together it still says women should not be allowed to talk in churches, much less stand up front and lead congregations.

All that aside, what about Paul's instructions to Timothy? This letter is typically taken as instructions for all churches.

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”(1 Tim 2:11-15).

scr

 

[Blackhawk]

Hello Blackhawk,

I have pulled out my Interlinear NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English. That's the best I can do on the Greek NT. I dont see any difference in the context or meaning of any of the translations. I am not certain what difference a carriage return or two would make. I note that your interpretation is of a singular church but every translation I read has the church listed as plural, which serves to further justify the classic interpretation. Can you please clarify your point? I just can't figure out a way to read 14:33-35 that doesn't say women should keep silent in churches. Even when I read that jumble that you stuck all together it still says women should not be allowed to talk in churches, much less stand up front and lead congregations.

I was really more or less trying to point out wht some say about the text and that many interpret "as in (BD)all the churches of the (BE)saints." as going with God not being the author of confusing and not with the statement that women are to be silent. Greek scholars have to make decision where to put the phrase because of how the greek manuscripts were written. (as I demonstrated in the last post) So for many it is not as crystal clear as in your version.

Now it does say churches and not church but which churches? I think I am too tired to give an answer and I do not know if I really have one that is different. Maybe when I get home from my trip to Houston I will pull out a book that tries to argue against the more conserative postion on women.

All that aside, what about Paul's instructions to Timothy? This letter is typically taken as instructions for all churches.

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”(1 Tim 2:11-15).

scr

Well I did not address this passage. I will try and look at it later. Right now I am too tired to think too clearly.

 

[justified]

Neither prayer nor prophesying require an audible voice. They should not be considered every day teaching or preaching either. Both could conceivably be done quietly, in church or anywhere else for that matter.

According to Numbers 12, to prophesy is to receive a vision or a dream from God. Deut 13 says the same thing. Prophets typically received a specific message from God for a specific purpose. The prophet was a different position than a Levitical priest; more of a specialist, vs a day to day minister. A female prophet is no new thing either. About 1/8 of the OT prophets, seven to be exact, were women, or prophetesses. Among them were Sarah (wife of Abraham), Deborah(judge), Hannah(Samuel's mother), Abigail, Huldah(message to King Josiah), Esther, and Miriam(Aaron's wife).
Noadiah and Jezebel are also referred to as OT prophetesses, but of a somewhat more dubious stature.

In the NT, there was Anna (prophesied about Christ), and four unnamed prophetesses (Acts 21) at the very least. There appears to be no quarrel with the fact that women can prophesy, yet as you point out, the Apostle makes the very clear and unambiguous statement about women not being allowed to teach men.

I have spoken to several women over the past couple of months about this topic, including a woman who has been a Methodist minister for 20 years who is absolutely convinced that we mustn't take the Apostle Paul literally when he says women are forbidden to teach publicly. I have understood and researched all the arguments for women clergy that I have heard to date. Quite frankly I am fishing for more with this post.

In point of fact, perhaps the receiving of a word of prophecy by the prophet may be done in silence, but the act of prophesying MUST be done audibly.

Now, here's what I figured you don't know: no one seems to know where I Cor. 14.34-35 belongs. Some manuscripts (D F G and the vulgate et. al.) put it after verse 40. Some omit the verse altogether. In fact, there is a great deal of confusion with these verse, which suggests to a lot of scholars that it is an interpolation. That is, sometime after Paul's letter was written, someone managed to stick this in (accidentally or otherwise) and it stuck in scripture. It's been known to happen elsewhere (e.g. I John 5:.7/8) and makes sense because when you read the passage carefully in Greek, it does not seem to belong there. It's a biit of a non-sequitor.

 

[depthdeception]

That title should generate some interest.

I am currently researching this topic and am interested in some of the arguments for women clergy. The bible is clear on this topic, yet there appear to be no shortage of women pastors in the (Methodist, among others) Church.

Note in particular, two fairly specific passages written by the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”(1 Tim 2:11-15).

“For God is not a God of disorder, but a God of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 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. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.”(1 Corinthians 14:33-38)

I am curious as to how this apparent incongruity is dealt with in the (Methodist) churches where women are currently presiding as ordained leaders of the congregation.

The "apparent incongruity" only exists because the passages are being improperly interpreted.

First of all, one must look at the passages individually, in their appropriate contexts. After all, Paul was not writing these books with a universal application in mind, as if he knew that the words he was writing would be used by all churches everywhere. Rather, he was writing to specific people in specific contexts, addressing specific problems. Therefore, to "universalize" what he says does an incredible disservice to the text.

I do not wish to spend a lot of time on this, but here are some preliminary thoughts re: the context. The Church at Ephesus may have been falling prey to a measure of syncretism with the Ephesian cultus of Artemis worship. With this, the teaching might have gone around that Eve had the primacy in creation and that Adam was taken from her, not vice versa. Therefore, there would have been women teaching the men because of their identification of power within the Artemis cultus. Paul, attempting to combat the cultural and religious tenants of the Ephesian cultus, may have prohibited women from teaching so as to avoid identification with the Ephesian cult, so that the separation and peculiarity of the Christians might be maintained over and against the syncretistic influences of the religious milieu of Ephesus.

In Corinth, the issue is more easily addressed. In Roman culture, women would not have been educated. Therefore, it is unlikely that they would have the skills necessary to teach others and preserve the truth of the gospel in the midst of persecution and religiously syncretistic environment. THerefore, Paul's plee is a practical one--allow only those who are qualified teach. In the culture of Corinth, only men would be qualified by virtue of their education.

As seen, the context of both the Ephesian and Corinthian churches drive the necessary interpretation of Paul's directives against female "preachers." His commandment, however, is not a "universal" one. Rather, it is context specific, and must be interpreted as such. The value of this is that one is able to interpret "literally"--there is no need for allegorizing. However, one must put in the work to understand the context to which Paul was writing; otherwise, everything will become absolutized and devolve into chaos and incomprehensibility.

 

[hatschie]

I am currently researching this topic and am interested in some of the arguments for women clergy. scr

If you want to get the view of some who allow women in ministry I'd recommend "Why not women" by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton.

hatschie

 

[PaladinValer]

The fact that there are women bishops and deacons mentioned in Scripture seems to prove that St. Paul is discussing a situation that was going on in the Church in Corinth at the time.

I should note that all of St. Paul's letters were not catholic letters, like Hebrews, 1 and 2 St. Peter, etc. They had to do with certain issues that pertained to the places he was writing to. A person needs to assertain carefully what the problem was before one can say it is a problem that could/does affect the Church universally.

 

[filosofer]

The "apparent incongruity" only exists because the passages are being improperly interpreted.

First of all, one must look at the passages individually, in their appropriate contexts. After all, Paul was not writing these books with a universal application in mind, as if he knew that the words he was writing would be used by all churches everywhere. Rather, he was writing to specific people in specific contexts, addressing specific problems. Therefore, to "universalize" what he says does an incredible disservice to the text.

I do not wish to spend a lot of time on this, but here are some preliminary thoughts re: the context. The Church at Ephesus may have been falling prey to a measure of syncretism with the Ephesian cultus of Artemis worship. With this, the teaching might have gone around that Eve had the primacy in creation and that Adam was taken from her, not vice versa. Therefore, there would have been women teaching the men because of their identification of power within the Artemis cultus. Paul, attempting to combat the cultural and religious tenants of the Ephesian cultus, may have prohibited women from teaching so as to avoid identification with the Ephesian cult, so that the separation and peculiarity of the Christians might be maintained over and against the syncretistic influences of the religious milieu of Ephesus.

In Corinth, the issue is more easily addressed. In Roman culture, women would not have been educated. Therefore, it is unlikely that they would have the skills necessary to teach others and preserve the truth of the gospel in the midst of persecution and religiously syncretistic environment. THerefore, Paul's plee is a practical one--allow only those who are qualified teach. In the culture of Corinth, only men would be qualified by virtue of their education.

As seen, the context of both the Ephesian and Corinthian churches drive the necessary interpretation of Paul's directives against female "preachers." His commandment, however, is not a "universal" one. Rather, it is context specific, and must be interpreted as such. The value of this is that one is able to interpret "literally"--there is no need for allegorizing. However, one must put in the work to understand the context to which Paul was writing; otherwise, everything will become absolutized and devolve into chaos and incomprehensibility.

The highlighted words mark the assumptions... reminds me when 35-40 years ago when I was math major in college, and the favorite phrase was "it is intuitively obvious that..." There was often nothing intuitive about it, except that the professor proclaimed it true. Likewise here, "may have" "might have" can do no more than hint at a possibility.... not very convincing.

So, if it isn't "universal" why does Paul refer back to Adam and Eve and the fall (i.e. prior to "culture" and "context")? Your statement above about the Ephesian cult is nothing more than an assumption.


In Christ's love,
filo

 

[depthdeception]

The highlighted words mark the assumptions... reminds me when 35-40 years ago when I was math major in college, and the favorite phrase was "it is intuitively obvious that..." There was often nothing intuitive about it, except that the professor proclaimed it true. Likewise here, "may have" "might have" can do no more than hint at a possibility.... not very convincing.

What's your point? It is impossible to have absolute precision in interpretation, especially when 2 millenia separate the interpreter from the text being interpreted. Nonetheless, I feel my "assumptions" show more of a measure of hermeneutical humility than an approach which says, "Well, this verse says it, so that's that."

So, if it isn't "universal" why does Paul refer back to Adam and Eve and the fall (i.e. prior to "culture" and "context")? Your statement above about the Ephesian cult is nothing more than an assumption.

You misunderstand my use of "universal." In the way I was using it (which is apparent in my post), I was showing that Paul was not speaking consciously to "all generations of believers" when answering the problem at Ephesus. Rather, he was using an example of universal significance (the story of Adam and Eve) to speak to a specific, contextual situation.

And actually, my statement about the Ephesian cult is more than an assumption. THere is some significant scholarship behind it. I could point you to some of it, if you wish.

 

[Scholar in training]

Neither prayer nor prophesying require an audible voice. They should not be considered every day teaching or preaching either. Both could conceivably be done quietly, in church or anywhere else for that matter.

Prophesy was always used for the community's benefit; whether that involved warning or instructing fellow believers. It was not a "hush-hush" matter. Paul here is not saying that women can't talk in church period.

 

[scr]

The "apparent incongruity" only exists because the passages are being improperly interpreted.

In Corinth, the issue is more easily addressed. In Roman culture, women would not have been educated. Therefore, it is unlikely that they would have the skills necessary to teach others and preserve the truth of the gospel in the midst of persecution and religiously syncretistic environment. THerefore, Paul's plee is a practical one--allow only those who are qualified teach. In the culture of Corinth, only men would be qualified by virtue of their education.

As seen, the context of both the Ephesian and Corinthian churches drive the necessary interpretation of Paul's directives against female "preachers." His commandment, however, is not a "universal" one. Rather, it is context specific, and must be interpreted as such. The value of this is that one is able to interpret "literally"--there is no need for allegorizing. However, one must put in the work to understand the context to which Paul was writing; otherwise, everything will become absolutized and devolve into chaos and incomprehensibility.

I respectfully disagree. Short of wishful handwaving, any argument citing contextual insight of 1 Cor 14 clearly argues against women speaking in the church. On the issue of clarity, prior to the verses in question, Paul mentions 'the church' six times (vv 4, 5, 12, 18, 26, and 28); all clearly referring to things that are of universal benefit and apply to all believers. In verse 22 he uses the decidedly unambiguous phrase, 'the whole church. ' In v33, the apostle makes clear his wish to avoid chaos and confusion, "For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace." Back in verse 6, he spends the next six verses clarifying his point with an illustration regarding the gifts prophesy and tongues. Paul was speaking on the issue of clarity and was certainly making every effort to be clear.

Yet his statement at the beginning of v34, "women should remain silent in churches." stands on its own merit, apparent to the apostle that it was in no need of further clarification. If, as you suggest, he was attempting to filter the uneducated or uncultured, why did he use the word women? Certainly the Greek of the day had the correct idom to accurately reflect his thoughts. Indeed, to qualify anyone based strictly on education or means would be in violation of James' exortation as to 'those who are poor in the eyes of the world" (2:5). He wrote women. Why can't that just mean women?

In fact, the trump in this discussion is the very fact that he was so curt and abrupt. When no extraneous context exists, the default applies. And to the frustrated screams of liberated women everywhere for the past fifty years, the default is that women have been Divinely placed in a role of submission to men, certainly in spiiritual matters relating to historical Judaism and Christianity, dating back to creation itself. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, simply required no further clarification.

By the way, I also do not agree that Paul had no idea that these thoughts would be read for centuries to come. Christ most certainly spoke to him with respect to his calling as Apostle to the Gentiles and I find it hard to imagine that he wasn't aware of the eternal significance of his task.

Perhaps a bit more time needs to be spent fleshing out your stance. Given the above discussion, "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches ..." just doesn't need a heck of a lot of clarification that I can see. And I have tried ... honestly.

scr

 

[depthdeception]

Yet his statement at the beginning of v34, "women should remain silent in churches." stands on its own merit, apparent to the apostle that it was in no need of further clarification. If, as you suggest, he was attempting to filter the uneducated or uncultured, why did he use the word women? Certainly the Greek of the day had the correct idom to accurately reflect his thoughts. Indeed, to qualify anyone based strictly on education or means would be in violation of James' exortation as to 'those who are poor in the eyes of the world" (2:5). He wrote women. Why can't that just mean women?

Part of the context of the Corinthian situation may have been that women--as already pointed out, they were by far mostly uneducated and not trained in the Scriptures--were speaking up in the congregation, causing the confusion which Paul was attempting to remedy and against which he was warning the Corinthians.

Moreover, the point of what I was saying was not reducible to simply the educational. I was simply using an example of why women might be prohibited from preaching in the congregations. After all, if you have one who is simply speaking out of turn, with no authority behind their words, little good and much harm will most likely come from whatever they speak.

In fact, the trump in this discussion is the very fact that he was so curt and abrupt. When no extraneous context exists, the default applies.

The "default?" What is that supposed to mean? There is no default. One cannot assume that Paul is making a non-context specific statement when the impetus of his entire book is context driven. There is no such thing as "no extraneous context"--it may be difficult to determine, but whatever is spoken is directed towards a specifically contextual issue. To assume that it is not is to misunderstand the nature of the letters which Paul wrote to the churches. He was not writing to us--he was writing to Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, etc.

And to the frustrated screams of liberated women everywhere for the past fifty years, the default is that women have been Divinely placed in a role of submission to men

No, any "submission" is the result of sin and relational dysfunction. God created male and female to be one, not one greater than the other, or one in domination over the other.

, certainly in spiiritual matters relating to historical Judaism

Yes, historical Judaism is rife with wonderful examples of godly male "authority" over women...not!~!

and Christianity, dating back to creation itself. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, simply required no further clarification.

Paul's message, although often distorted by those who wish to proof-text, is clearly that there is no longer "male nor female, Jew nor Greek..." This must be the controlling dictum, with the other Pauline passages coming under its perview.

By the way, I also do not agree that Paul had no idea that these thoughts would be read for centuries to come. Christ most certainly spoke to him with respect to his calling as Apostle to the Gentiles and I find it hard to imagine that he wasn't aware of the eternal significance of his task.

This is complete speculation. On the basis of the texts themselves, the only reasonable conclusion is that Paul was writing exclusively with the churches of his context in mind.

Perhaps a bit more time needs to be spent fleshing out your stance. Given the above discussion, "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches ..." just doesn't need a heck of a lot of clarification that I can see. And I have tried ... honestly.

Perhaps you should study the context of women in Roman culture at the time of Paul. To even allow women into the services would have been a radical step. I have already explained the bits about the silence...

 

[Nazaroo]

I can't believe this mistranslation hasn't been corrected here, and its still floating around.

Actually, Paul said women were forbidden to screech in public, not 'preach' in public.

You people should know this.

 

[scr]

Part of the context of the Corinthian situation may have been that women--as already pointed out, they were by far mostly uneducated and not trained in the Scriptures--were speaking up in the congregation, causing the confusion which Paul was attempting to remedy and against which he was warning the Corinthians.

Moreover, the point of what I was saying was not reducible to simply the educational. I was simply using an example of why women might be prohibited from preaching in the congregations. After all, if you have one who is simply speaking out of turn, with no authority behind their words, little good and much harm will most likely come from whatever they speak.



The "default?" What is that supposed to mean? There is no default. One cannot assume that Paul is making a non-context specific statement when the impetus of his entire book is context driven. There is no such thing as "no extraneous context"--it may be difficult to determine, but whatever is spoken is directed towards a specifically contextual issue. To assume that it is not is to misunderstand the nature of the letters which Paul wrote to the churches. He was not writing to us--he was writing to Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, etc.



No, any "submission" is the result of sin and relational dysfunction. God created male and female to be one, not one greater than the other, or one in domination over the other.



Yes, historical Judaism is rife with wonderful examples of godly male "authority" over women...not!~!



Paul's message, although often distorted by those who wish to proof-text, is clearly that there is no longer "male nor female, Jew nor Greek..." This must be the controlling dictum, with the other Pauline passages coming under its perview.



This is complete speculation. On the basis of the texts themselves, the only reasonable conclusion is that Paul was writing exclusively with the churches of his context in mind.



Perhaps you should study the context of women in Roman culture at the time of Paul. To even allow women into the services would have been a radical step. I have already explained the bits about the silence...

BECAUSE! Has never been a satisfactory answer.

scr