The CBE Scroll

Comment by Jane

January 27, 2010 @ 7:57 pm

Was it to Jews or to Romans????

Because when I wrestled with this scripture one verse, well several actually, that came to me but this was the biggest, was about Anna, the Prophetess who the Lord spoke through, to Mary and Joseph. I couldn’t figure out Why Before Jesus women were allowed to speak [and God spoke through them in numerous texts in Old Testament] and then in the NT women are told they are shameful.

I nearly tossed God out the window on that one, it was the ‘shameful’ part that stuck, as if I was shamed for being ‘female’ and that hit hard–I contemplated going to the Goddess religions, that is how hard it hit because if God created me and then said I am shameful, to me that was Identical to Allah.

But later the other verses came to me and so I thought, ok something Wrong here–was Bible tampered with or, does it mean something else. I did wonder about that question too. But it took me weeks before I could read the Bible again–that and the whole sons in Revelations and the use of brethren and then one in Old Testament, in Job, I think, sons of God, I asked Him,

What, is there no Women in Heaven?

So for two days I hated God over that one [I'm talking real hate/confusion here] and then another scripture came to me, they are heirs together.

I find I am Always battling these scriptures, NOT as much as I used to, but they are Very damaging, I can just Imagine the damage they do when males preach them to women…I am surprise our suicide rates among women aren’t higher in Christian circles to be frank,

or maybe they are [attempts] and we just don’t hear about them. But I will say this, in reading these scriptures, it makes it very difficult to Confront the misogyny in Islam because well,

the apple don’t fall far from the tree, so its not just good to confront them in regards to the women haters who preach such, but to those millions who See these scriptures and who say,

uh Hah, you see Islam not bad after all and believe me, They do. And that is why they are gaining advantage over many liberal minds, in the West–the Christian fundamentalists are literally,
paving the way, for Sharia Law.

And that is NO understatement.

Jane

Comment by jlp

January 30, 2010 @ 12:13 pm

Thanks for sharing this Sonnet. I know a lot of people don’t understand what you are saying. My hope is someday they will.

Comment by leigh

January 30, 2010 @ 1:41 pm

So the idea here is that Paul is quoting from another source? The oral law?

I think I have heard somewhere that there were no quotation marks (or the equivalent) in the Greek language at the time Paul wrote. Is this the case? It would certainly help explain some of the confusion in translation.

Comment by Sonnet

January 30, 2010 @ 9:24 pm

Yes, Leigh.

I’ve also read that quotation marks still hadn’t been invented yet in the Greek language.

Here is another interesting point that Katharine Bushnell makes in her book:

“Next ask yourself this question: If this one only utterance of St. Paul’s is to be set up as a Scriptural “law” to silence women, then what is to be done with the hundred and one other “laws” in the O. T. opening the mouths of women, such as “Let the redeemed of the Lord say so,” “Praise ye the Lord” (repeated about a hundred times in the Psalms alone), “Make a joyful noise unto the Lord,” “Declare His doings among the people,” “Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord,” “Tell of all His wondrous works”? For it is simply impossible for men to set up an effectual claim, that all these admonitions and exhortations in the O. T. were meant for themselves only. It was not so understood or taught for thousands of years. This over zeal of certain religious teachers for such an interpretation of a single sentence of Scripture as sets at defiance a hundred or two of other Scriptural utterances (rather than an attempt to harmonize the one with the many), should warn us against accepting their interpretation too hastily. Why, for instance, have not such sticklers for a literal and universal application of a single phrase here been equally sticklers for a literal and universal application of Paul’s authority where he says it is good for unmarried females to remain so (1 Cor. 7:8, 34-35)? But no! they are usually the very persons who advocate marriage and domestic pursuits as the one and only calling for women. Why do they not claim that the phrase, “Let all the earth keep silence before Him,” (Hab. 2:20), should close, not only the mouths of women, but of the entire church?” (God’s Word to Women p. 90)

Comment by Jane

January 31, 2010 @ 11:48 am

In reflecting on this scripture along with many others…without going into translations and all the semantics, here’s some things I come up with, and may be useful in confronting so many of the yes, CULTS, I’ll say it, that’s what many of these comp camps ARE is CULTS–Christian Wahhabism is right. So, in an MLK way [been reading the Old posts, and I will be bringing some of those back up and esp those on feminism]so, some Questions then for those to question these CULT teachings–the WW2 reverting [good post on that here back in 2007, Excellent]

1. IF the literal interpretation is True, and the FACT that in NT Anna was a Prophetess IN THE TEMPLE, then later Paul says its a Shame for Women to speak in the church[Temple],

then, (a) That would mean then that God is NOT the Same, Yesterday, Today and Forever…from THAT scripture alone [never mind Miriam, Deborah, other women in OT who SPOKE], that would mean that God shifts HIS Word…or

(b) IF it is true that its a SHAME for women to Speak in the church or Temple, then the Word of the Lord spoken to Joseph and Mary Through a WOMAN, because it was IN THE TEMPLE would therefore, IF you are going to STICK TO THE LITERAL WORD OF PAUL HERE, ON SILENCE, is then IN QUESTION, THEREFORE, QUESTIONING THE ‘LORDSHIP’ AND HIS BEING ‘MESSIAH’ OF JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. He may NOT be the Messiah because IF its a SHAME as many CULTS now say, then they are ALSO SAYING THAT THE WORD THROUGH ANNA, A VIOLATION OF PAUL’S COMMAND, IF TAKEN LITERAL, IS IN ITSELF A VIOLATION [ANNA'S SPEAKING] AND THEREFORE IS ‘SUSPECT’. God is Either a liar or flaky–speaking through a woman OR that Woman LIED. To the Comps address That one because according to YOUR interpretation God Himself Violates His Commands–if the Literal Silence [Paul] is true, then Anna speaking is SHAMEFUL. A disgrace–therefore, the Words spoken to Mary and Joseph about Jesus are Surely, to NOT be trusted, being they were spoken by one–A SHAMEFUL WOMAN–NOT HER HUSBAND, SHE WAS A WIDOW– that it is a Shame to speak. Period. Can’t HAVE IT BOTH WAYS…

[c] Any explanation of the above While clinging to the Literal Interpretation therefore makes God A SHIFTY CHARACTER THAT TURNS WITH EVERY WIND, THEREFORE ANOTHER VIOLATION – CONTRADICTION OF BIBLE, CONTRADICTS JAMES. Also contradicts ACTS, contradicts the Pouring of the Holy Spirit–IF its a Shame for women to speak—and the Holy Spirit was poured out on Women to speak Prophecies–then according to Literal interpretations the Holy Spirit then would have to be guilty of wrong doing….That is a Serious Allegation–So the Literalists had Better stop and think, of just what they are saying…its Identical to the Pharisees accusing the healing through Jesus to be of Satan. WE KNOW the Holy Spirit does NO EVIL, period, nor anything SHAMEFUL, so–IF its a SHAME for the woman to speak AT All in church [temple] then–we would have to Go back and Change the BIBLE to say, the Holy Spirit was poured out on MEN ONLY. Therefore Literalists, you need to GET TO WORK AND CHANGE THE REST OF THE BIBLE TO AGREE WITH YOUR LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THE WRITERS OF BIBLE WERE WRONG, SINCE YOU DECLARE YOU ARE RIGHT.

You will have to work out the Warning in Revelations for yourself I suppose, if any take away or Add anything, etc.

[d] Literalists you will have to Also rewrite the OT, because God sinned, when speaking through Miriam,Deborah, Esther, and many others,Hannah, who spoke IN THE TEMPLE AND TO THE PRIEST, SHE SPOKE TO HIM–NOT TO HER HUSBAND, remember, it is Shameful for a woman to speak at all–therefore, God Himself would be Guilty. OR you will have to Rewrite that God is the same Yesterday, Today and Forever…to God is NOT the same and God changes from time to time–IF you are going to Stick to your Literalism you need to GO ALL THE WAY WITH IT–DO IT RIGHT, OR FACE IT–YOU HAVE MANY VARIATIONS OF WHO GOD IS…SO, WHICH ‘god’ ARE WE SERVING TODAY ‘SIRS’? Please do tell, Inquiring minds want to Know.

2. Lets look at it from Another angle too, why don’t we, Wasn’t those docs, that Paul wrote, were they NOT letters? I read they were letters and were not really meant to be turned into a book, we Don’t have the letters [or maybe we do] of the ones Writing Paul, so who knows there–but, are they Letters or are they Minutes recording of Church Meetings? Because Either way, I see two problems here, with the Literal Interpretation so allow me to uh, clarify.

[a] IF they are Minutes recorded of the church Meets, then where are the Names of any speakers who Question Paul? Somebody Had to counter Paul because he said What, did the word of God come only through you? Paul speaks of contention, Contention through Whom I may ask? No names are mentioned. We KNOW it couldn’t be Women, because IF the contention had of been IN that Setting at the time Paul recorded the Minutes–He would have said, What, did the Word of God come through you. Period. NOT “ONLY” because we see that, Paul already wrote down, it is a shame for women to speak…let them ask husbands at home. So, it Couldn’t have been women who argued with Paul because He would have said, The Word of God never comes through you, it is a Shame for it to do so–only your Husbands speak the Word of God. But Paul didn’t Say that, he said, What, did the Word of God come through you ONLY…so lets look at ONLY shall we?

Somebody either was in contention to Paul in that meeting OR, Paul was quoting, IF, it was a Man or Men, then, men in That day wanted WOMEN TO SPEAK, sort of goes contrary to the culture in that time so That presents a huge problem. I’ve yet to see a Group of Men step up and Argue with Any man over a Woman’s Right to Speak. The STANDARD of that day, in the TEMPLES, was women sat on the Other side, totally Segregated [actually in Orthodox Judaism women set in another chamber and I know, I am married to an Orthodox Jew, Kohanite-tribe of Levites, you want to ARGUE law, with Him, GO FOR IT BABY, [personally I'd love to watch That one, ha ha ha]

but That was the standard and Still is today. Those MEN would not DARE say, to Paul or any OTHER JEW, and Paul was a JEW, lets not forget that, that Women have a RIGHT to speak in church–it goes Totally contrary to Jewish culture AND the Judaic LAW,[Torah and Talmud] and all the sects go by that law of Segregation of genders in the TEMPLES. Church, Temple, same thing…and we KNOW in Roman Pagan Temples women did not speak–screwed yes, speak no, their role was to screw men for Money for the temples, so he wasn’t Arguing with ex-Pagans or the argument wouldn’t have been over ‘talking in church’ but why can’t we pimp the women out for Mulah. $$$ which was Common Practice then–are have the Temples standing today with the naked women Missed you somehow???? [duh]

so, who was Paul contending with over this? It Couldn’t have Been anyone arguing that Women should speak…IF that is the case, then Literalists, YOU know more than the JEWS AND YOU NEED TO GO BACK, AND REWRITE THE TORAH TOO. You literalists got some work to do, I wonder, it took Jews Centuries to write–will You be as Particular? LOL, of course, you’ll have to Fight the Jews over that one–re-writing Their texts to end all contradictions to YOUR literal Claims.

[b] IF it was a Letter, then Paul was arguing with Who again, and -or arguing with Himself maybe? Kind of Bi-Polar there don’t ya think–arguing with himself in a Letter saying, WHAT? Maybe, who knows right? So, lets say, then, Paul was writing a letter, it Still would have to Mean that Paul was addressing Somebody who was in Contention–about women speaking–we KNOW it couldn’t have been a Woman or Women, because NO WOMAN IN THAT DAY would have Insisted that God spoke through them ONLY. See that key word there, ONLY, it would be Unheard of, unless, of course HISTORY is wrong too and then YOU will need to also go and RE-WRITE HISTORY, my my You literalists are going to be a Busy bunch.

So, it had to be MEN who were in contention so then, Who in History, in the Temples then, argued that Women had the Right to speak in Temples when in fact, it wasn’t even Custom for women to even SIT WITH MEN? IT was the Calvinists who had women-men sit across the room, you can find pictures/drawings of those meets-but in All Jewish Temples, the women are in a Totally different ROOM, so, that leaves a problem, a huge one…

either it Had to be in reference to women Preaching in the Temple, which I find hard to believe as Most women in that day didn’t even READ–other than the high elites, and we KNOW in Judaism women did not Preach, so, IF the literal interpretation is true–it leaves a lot of room for doubt–as to what the contention was in first place,

if we go to scripture, we see Paul talking about Prophecies, that they are orderly, etc. So it might have [if men were Contending and I don't believe they were over wanting women to Speak] it had to be over those prophecies–

so, we have that word ONLY once more…why Only? That, did the Word of God come through you ONLY?

IT had to mean, that there were MEN who were contenting with Paul over the fact that they claimed it was shameful for women to Prophecy and that they should be quiet–and Paul comes back and answers, What, did the Word of God [Holy Spirit] come through you ONLY?

And the ‘let them ask husbands at home’, had to be, over the meaning OF those prophecies, Remember Paul also spoke in Same book, about the Prophecies having an Interpreter, about not having people just talking all over the place–God wants peace and order. So that ‘unbelievers’ don’t come in and think they are all crazy and drunk.

There is only ONE verse that I know of, where Paul says, to Timothy, he does not allow Women to have Authority over ‘man’, etc. I actually, shocking as this may Come to you, don’t have a problem with this IN the church–because of the fact that in That day, in Pagan Temples, and what transpired in those temples—Paul would in no way want Any resemblance of that in the church. Because men would have been ‘lusting’ after the woman, etc.,that is what Drew men to the Pagan Temples–shrines, which there are still some in world today [West Africa, they are Brothels to be blunt--today we may not have brothels but we sure as heck have private brothels masked under abusive marriages, another topic, another time].

So, that Question–WHAT, did the Word of God come through you ONLY, presents a LOT of problems doesn’t it? IF you take literal interpretations, then you must Answer, to Whom was being contentious in either Letter or Minutes and WHY?

so, we know some things,

1. it wasn’t Women, couldn’t have been
2. it wasn’t Men who wanted women to speak–obviously

so that leaves one thing and one thing only–it was MEN who did NOT want women to speak at All and that includes Prophecies spoken via the Holy Spirit.

THEREFORE, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN AGREEMENT WITH PAUL, IF YOUR LITERAL INTERPRETATION IS RIGHT–SO THEN, UNLESS PAUL IS INSANE, HE WOULDN’T HAVE TO ARGUE, WITH MEN, WHO ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH HIM…ON WOMEN BEING A DISGRACE TO SPEAK,

THEREFORE, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED OF,

WHAT, DID THE WORD OF GOD COME THROUGH YOU ONLY?

so to the Literalist and Cult dogs, I ask, Which is it? Because uh, some of us get a tad confused as to What is God, because you have painted for us a Totally different God from the God in the Bible that I read about. Please see To it, as you declare its your God Given Duty to oversee, to Correct these ‘flaws’ in the Bible that contradict YOUR literal statements regarding Paul, women being silent and so forth.

Oh, and go back, and Correct the Torah and Talmud too, my husband would love to talk with you on That one.

LOL

Jane

Comment by Jane

January 31, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

Another Question to the Comp teachings on this, I can ask, can’t I? It is ‘not’ teaching, it is asking and since you Literalist so claim your God given Absolute Right to Truth/Teach/Oversee–and Because I am seeking the True God, I am going to ask…

so, going back to the Temple/Church and the literal meaning of women being silent, etc. [see above, this is in addition too],

Can you please then explain, how then, IF it is a shame for women to speak AT ALL in church, a.k.a. Temple, then how can women, being Bodies, and Bodies in the Bible means, Temple of the Holy Spirit, be truly Filled with the Holy Spirit?

Because if God, His Spirit in the Temple, says [according to YOUR literal doctrine] that its a SHAME AND A DISGRACE FOR A ‘WOMAN’ TO TALK AT ALL, therefore HE Himself so thus declared it and the Implication there is that IF a ‘WOMAN’ speaks its NOT of God [unless God is bi polar and violates Himself] but would be of Satan, if she speaks that is…

NOW then, if God thus declared that in the Temple, Church, where HE resides through Men, like in the Tabernacle in OT, then WHY would a Holy God then, turn Right around and fill a WOMAN in ANY WAY, WITH HIS SPIRIT?

Because on ONE hand you are saying[the comps], that God says WOMAN is shameful to speak in Temple, but on the other, SHE, a BODY–THAT THE BIBLE SAYS, IS THE ‘TEMPLE’ OF THE HOLY SPIRIT—THAT IN THAT CASE, ITS ‘NOT SHAMEFUL’,

again, you can’t have it BOTH WAYS.

Either the Woman is shame and therefore the Holy Spirit declares that she should NOT speak and if she does its NOT of God, but of Satan,

then, that would HAVE TO APPLY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH AS WELL, INCLUDING IN HER ‘BODY’ BECAUSE THE BODY IS THE TEMPLE.

Therefore, THAT leaves another problem, MEN, you are entering into a Temple that is NOT filled with the Spirit of God every time you have relations with your Wife—therefore according to Paul, you are joining Christ with something Ungodly, IF you are going to take those LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS,

or do you just Pick and Choose what is good for YOU?

Also since SHE, the Body cannot be Filled with the Holy Spirit [since it would be a Shame to do so, if its a Shame for her to speak because the Word of God cannot come through her] then She can’t be Saved either,

because in Romans, only Those who have the SPIRIT OF CHRIST IN THEM can be saved. So, SHE can’t be–

and then, YOU sin if YOU sleep with her because Paul also said, you should not be Unequally yoked NOR should you join Jesus with a Harlot!

So Literalists you are in quite a Pickle, because YOU are Violating the Holy Spirit every time you demand sex from you wife, who is a Body, a Temple and a Temple that it is a SHAME for her to speak and God would NOT do what is shameful–IF your Literal Doctrine is Correct.

Therefore, it would Also be shameful for a NON-Spirit filled woman to teach Homeschool–because how can Satan teach about God? Someone who isn’t Filled with the Holy Spirit is not belonging to God so YOU are allowing a heathen to teach YOUR children, IF your interpretations are Correct.

UNLESS OF COURSE, YOU ARE ABOVE GOD AND ARE MORE HOLY THAN GOD?

Because if GOD says something is Shameful in ONE part He won’t say its NOT Shameful in another part–UNLESS then, God like you, picks and chooses according to His Whims…

SEE if YOU are going to Apply those Literal Interpretations you MUST do so, to EVERYTHING, NOT JUST TO WHAT YOU PICK, GOD IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF HOLY SELECTIVNESS, ITS SIN HERE BUT NOT SIN HERE, ETC.

Either its Sin or it isn’t…in instances of Holiness and Contradictions, take Murder for example, in the Bible, God has Always given Explanations—as to Why the reason or contradiction, he did NOT leave that up to Men to interpret at their whim, why Moses was the leader who God spoke to AND who, Moses that is, LIVED a very Holy Life, in Every way, he Feared God and he always Prayed, to God to have Mercy, including towards Miriam, when she challenged Moses–her and Aaron, now are YOU, the Literalist, more Holy than Moses?!!! etc., and then the High Priests, though we know that men Did interpret according to their desires and we know what God Did to those men.

So then, Please do clarify how a Holy God would say, in the Temple – Church it is a Shame for ANY woman to speak, AT ALL, and if she does she is in violation because God would Never speak through a Woman, etc.,

but NOT outside of church? This cannot be, because the Bible also says, Paul in Corinth that the Body is the Temple, therefore, to the Literalists, how does God refuse Woman in church –Temple yet turn Right around and violate HIS own Demand according to YOUR literal interpretation and Fill the Woman her Body with the Holy Spirit, the Body being a Temple, and then help her to

1. pray
2. praise
3. teach children
4. help you

?

And ACTUALLY, LITERALISTS, IF YOU ARE GOING TO APPLY THE SHAME FOR WOMEN IN CHURCH, YOU MUST ALSO APPLY THE SHAME FOR WOMEN TO TEACH CHILDREN, HOMESCHOOL, BECAUSE TRUTH IS, IN JUDAIC LAW, ACCORDING TO SOME ‘SECTS’ ONLY THE ‘MEN’ WERE ALLOWED TO TEACH CHILDREN SCRIPTURE OF ANY KIND, IT WAS THE FATHER’S JOB, TO TEACH THE TALMUD/TORAH.

That is Still Jewish tradition in Orthodox.

So YOU are violating your OWN DOCTRINES BY FORCING OR COERCING WOMEN TO TEACH–HOMESCHOOL WITH BIBLE, because it is a SHAME for women to have Authority, that includes over your sons. Like the Jews [sects] who force women to be silent in homes, you’ll have to work out the conflict over children honor they father AND mother–you’ll have to Discard the scriptures in Proverbs where it says Do not dismiss the teachings of your Mother-the foolish son, etc.

Also you will need to Remove from the NT the scriptures about women teaching younger women, though it may just be in the Literal groups teaching them to obey to 24 hour sex and cooking–it Still is according to Scriptures [your literal teachings] and God would NOT speak through women, so you’re on dangerous ground there, letting women, who cannot BE filled with the Spirit [unless God violates His commands and He would have to do so IF your literal interpretations are correct], because then THAT is also, a Violation of God’s Holy commands.

See the Muslims, at least their misogynist teachings go All the way, not pick and choose, here and there…

Bible Literalists on the other hand, seem to have this God is this way here, but another way here…any time it has to do with men, and sex and women.

So, I am seeing many ‘contradictions’ that I think, should be asked, I’m sure, since the Literalists have THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH ON EVERYTHING,

they won’t mind Explaining, how they have reconciled God as one way here and then God violating His own commands somewhere else.

I’d be interested in answers, Especially those that God ‘condones’ Sin if a woman is submitting, that opens the Door to All sorts of things,

and I find it interesting that literalists do NOT answer these things, they talk Around them,

well I say, since They claim to be the Overseer of Souls, that they Gird up their Loins and Answer…

if they do not, then I have to ask, What makes them Qualified then, to be Teachers?

IS God Holy or is He not? Because if God is Absolute Holiness, then why is it, that So many ‘literal interpretations’ and how they are being Taught, are saying,

God Himself, Violates His own Holiness, to the fulfilling the Desires of MEN. Muslims don’t have much a problem in this area because Muhummad lived what he wrote in the Hadiths, like marriage/sex with a child…

Jesus did not, so Literalists, YOU have some explaining to do

Jane

Comment by Frank

February 2, 2010 @ 12:25 am

Last year, I wrote a critique of “The Bible and Women Preachers”–an article by a complementarian who distorted Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 11-14 regarding men and women praying and prophesying together during congregational worship. This author had argued that Paul’s teaching on who was to prophesy and how they were to prophesy was merely hypothetical. For it was clear from 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:8-15 that Paul absolutely forbade women from preaching and teaching to mixed audiences during worship. Well, my critique focused on 1 Cor 14:34-35, within the context of 1 Corinthians as a whole, and then within the whole of Paul’s teaching and practice as we find it in the NT.

So, in connection with Sonnet’s excellent posting on this text, I would like to make the following observations and comments:

In 1 Cor. 14:1-5, Paul reminds the Corinthians that they are to walk in the way of love and desire those gifts of the Spirit, especially prophesy, which build up the church. And as everyone who has consulted the standard lexicons and grammatical works knows, prophecy, as “proclamation” involves instruction and exhortation. But Paul does not indicate here, in any way, that a woman is not to seek or ask for this gift.

Then in 14:6-19, Paul discusses the distinction between and purpose of both tongues and prophecy, giving prophecy greater priority because it is the intelligible communication of God’s word, which instructs and builds up the entire assembly. He goes on to explain in 14:20-25 that the predominance of tongues, without interpretation, is a sign of God’s displeasure and even judgment; whereas when the congregation engages in the proper exercise of prophecy, God’s pleasure and blessing is manifested by inquirers and visiting non-believers coming under conviction, recognizing God is present, and believing the Gospel of Christ.

And then in 14:26-33, after saying that when they “come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue or an intepretation. Let all things be done for the building up [the assembly]” (14:26, following NRSV), assuming the previous instructions of 11:2-16, Paul then explains the proper way to exercise the gift of tongues in a congregational setting, as well as the proper way that men and women, as prophets, are to exercise their gift, concluding his instruction with the statement: “And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:32, NRSV). Again, up to this point, there is no indication that either speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, proclaming God’s message, or giving a lesson to others in the congregation has any gender restriction attached to it.

But when we come to 14:34-35, we are, suddenly and without warning, slapped with a statement that is clearly in stark contrast to Paul’s teaching and practice elsewhere in the NT:

As in all the assemblies of the saints, women should be silent in the assemblies. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they want to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly.

What are we to make of this? Did Paul, at this point, fall back into his old Jewish veiws and fail to follow his own teaching in Gal. 3:26-4:7?

Here, I believe, we must follow the advice of Sir William Ramsay, a great archaeologist and NT scholar, who said regarding this text, “We should be ready to suspect that Paul is making a quotation from the letter addressed to him by the Corinthians whenever he alludes to their knowledge, or when any statement stands in MARKED CONTRAST either with the immediate context or with Paul’s known views.” And there are a number of clues, both in 1 Corinthians and Paul’s other writings that should lead us to see that is not teaching his own view, but exposing and opposing error circulating at Corinth.

Consider, for example, the sentence, “For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says.” Nowhere else in his early writings (1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans) does Paul indicate that he does not believe Joel’s prophecy that in the Messianic age both men and women would prophesy by the Spirit; that they would not prophesy during congregational worship; nor would they not examine and judge each other’s prophetic messages. Furthermore, we know from Acts 21:7-11, that for several days, while in Caesarea, Paul sat under the prophetic ministry of Philip’s four daughters. Surely, if 1 Cor. 14:34-35 had always been Paul’s view regarding women preaching and teaching, we would have expected him to confront the errors of the Caesarean church. Yet there is no record of Paul either rebuking these women or rebuking Philip for letting his daughters publically proclaim God’s word to the congregation. So we should suspect these verses as being someone else’s view, not Paul’s.

But I think the last clause, “as the law says,” is the key to solving this problem. In Paul’s writings (e.g., Galatians and Romans), when debating with the Judaizers, the Greek term nomos, often translated in English as “law,” was a synonym for the Hebrew term torah–which Paul understood and used in one of three ways: 1) As a reference to the Hebrew Scriptures, in part or as a whole; 2) to the Mosaic Law and Covenant, either in whole or in part; or 3) to the Jewish oral legal tradition, which later was codified in the Mishnah and the Talmud, and which both Jesus and Paul rejected as having any authority in the Christian communities. Here are few quotes from this tradition that Jesus and Paul repudiated:

1. “A woman’s voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative” (Talmud, Berachot 24a).
2. “It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men” (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin).

Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 14:36(RSV), Paul repudiates this teaching, “What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?” This verse, which is a question, begins with the disjunctive Greek conjunction, He’. According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, p. 275, in this and several other texts, when this conjunction is at the beginning of “a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand.”

So, contrary to its misuse and abuse by hierarchical complementarians, this text cannot be legitimately used as a Pauline prohibition against women preachers and teachers. This because it is not his own teaching in the first place, but a heretical teaching of the Corinthians themselves, which he repudiates.

Comment by leigh

February 2, 2010 @ 11:48 am

“Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 14:36(RSV), Paul repudiates this teaching, “What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?” This verse, which is a question, begins with the disjunctive Greek conjunction, He’. According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, p. 275, in this and several other texts, when this conjunction is at the beginning of “a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand.””

WHY is this not indicated somehow in the translations that most Christians use every day? Its omission certainly opens the door to its use to limit women. Even by those who otherwise might not be so inclined.

Comment by Jane

February 2, 2010 @ 1:56 pm

Wow Frank,
you hit on something else too [and thank you for confirming what I was seeing, though you put it so much more eloquently, and I do wonder, how those verses in Talmud came about too, my husband says there are Hundreds and Hundreds of them, interpreted/added by men, learned in culture/history, etc., I've read some readings written by Rabbis, many are good, especially human rights and the Eved laws, those in OT about daughters/servants and slavery, once I read Those I understood how unless we know what those really mean in the context of the culture then, it would be easy to misconstrue them, etc].

But anyway, God and I have been doing a lot of ‘self examination’ about so many things…and I’m seeing a lot, especially about religion, unregeneration/false conversion, what walking in Spirit really is, why we get into good/evil and so forth, and I am understanding a lot more…

and well this popped out to me, where you mention Paul not rebuking the women but to the Corinthians–

“So, contrary to its misuse and abuse by hierarchical complementarians, this text cannot be legitimately used as a Pauline prohibition against women preachers and teachers. This because it is not his own teaching in the first place, but a heretical teaching of the Corinthians themselves, which he repudiates”

the SAME Corinthians who did not excommunicate the man who was sexually immoral!

I never saw how those two were of the same ‘group’, etc. So like that Really puts things in a whole other perspective,

LOL we are like the Corinthians! In MORE ways than one, we meaning, generally speaking, status of today, so forth.

That’s exciting really to see that veil coming off, it really is, like it’s becoming more clear…

at the Same time however, I am understanding WHY these comp teachings are so easy to get into and adhere to for so many when I didn’t see this before…and its not just about gender roles,

but how we see through the eyes of Good & Evil from OUR HEARTS, but without really grasping, what that means and then trying to Reform ourselves, by applying laws, righteousness–

and Totally missing it.

I have done this with other issues, the measuring–we always want to measure our selves with others/what we see as ‘good & evil’ [though we are all dead/why we Have to be Born AGAIN, from scratch], because our natural state just does this, sees that way–and when we come to Jesus, we CAN be like those who came to Jesus because He fed them, or the Ten who were healed but only one came back…there is something of revelation there, on a very deep level,

Religion, is the BEST hiding place to hide guilt–to hide from the LIGHT, lest our Evil be exposed. :) And it comes in SO MANY FORMS, and I’m talking the Christian Religion…we can come to Jesus, see how our Lives aren’t profiting, get fed by Him, then see good/evil, apply good, Reforming-getting into Law, and still, MISS IT.

Unregenerate still, and the unregenerate, false conversion, can be SO DECEPTIVE, I am referring to my OWN EXPERIENCE with this, not about others. And we then measure, by others, by roles, by certain standards, seeing others and then its the ‘you must live according to this, you don’t, I’m right, you are wrong, and it just is Satan’s work, iniquity, and NO FRUIT can EVER come from it, form of Godliness but Denying [not giving access to, a full seeing oneself and coming to God admitting GUILTY] the Power thereof, and we truly are workers of iniquity, though we may think we are Christian. [again, what I am seeing about my own self]

God keeps working though, drawing us with His love, we don’t understand love though because our Hearts, those Rocks, have no root–they can’t, they in that good and evil, etc.

Unregenerate…the unregenerate will Always adhere to Formulas, Gender Roles, Applications, the Constant measuring–either by legalism or rebellion or what have you, but its really the same,

and I asked God about this measuring thing [and the condemning] and why do we do this?

He tells me, look at Cain and Abel, that is what measuring is, and I got it. I can’t Explain it, really, I don’t know How to put into words what I am seeing about myself/life and all these teachings and so forth,

but I am understanding, what and why, a little, why Corinthians and what Paul was saying, etc., righteousness in the ‘flesh’ which is really just dead works, filthy rags,

but its more than just the whole filthy rags in doing–its on a much deeper heart-spirit level. We don’t see it until we measure, ourselves, not in good and evil or against one another or male and female,

but, against God. Does that make sense?

Once you see yourself, against God’s rule of measurement, not religion, but God’s–then you see what Mercy is, and its hard to grasp–because you see, really, what your sentence is Without His saving you. And Love, we don’t know what Love is, we have to be Transformed, to know…

we could apply gender roles and rules and regulations until we are blue in the face–it will Never, regenerate the human heart, it can’t. And if we fall into that, we are blinded, to our true naked and miserable state, because we then, are measuring, still, like Cain and Abel…

and the murder begins. [in heart, its still murder]

WE can’t do it, transform, it is God, who works, that is what that means,

light came into the world, they hated the light and refused to come to it lest their evil deeds be exposed [and many went to religion--my experience, knowing About Jesus but not really Knowing Jesus in REAL way] and those who come to the light, the works Wrought by God in them in Truth.

I wondered about that, the works wrought by God in Truth, notice, not works/change/reform and application by them, works wrought by God.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

here’s the Key: But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

{John 3:19-21)

they are WROUGHT in GOD.

I can’t explain it, but now that I understand it, I’m not angry anymore AT these people nor do I hate them–I hate what the teachings are, but I understand now, because I did the same but with other issues, not roles per se, and I see…

I see the deception, what causes us, to get in bondage to that, the LIE, you know, putting on the LIE, lest our evil be exposed, in God’s light. Hiding that being ‘naked’ with measuring,

and condemning. Remove the board from your own eye SO THAT YOU CAN SEE, THEN, you can remove the SPECK, notice its not Board but Speck, from your brother’s eye,

and BOARD in your own? Its not about the good verses evil, but the Evil heart–and that Board, it will Always need to ‘measure’ to Justify itself. To hide, from God and His Holiness and Love, that death tree in us/who we are, in natural state,

unregenerate.

AND the thing is, its SO DECEPTIVE, one can go YEARS believing the LIE and not see it–religion does this so well because the law is that measurement, why the need to Apply it so much to everyone, etc., that ruler, Jesus said, go and find out what Mercy is,

Truth…to really come to TRUTH, religion hides truth, oh it hides Truth, legalism hides it SO WELL, but here’s the clincher,

it can hide it, just as well, when we are standing on the side of ‘good’ too in that good verses evil. Why its so tricky,

no fruit—I got that one too, the good and honest heart Having–heard the Word [spiritual ears] and Having Kept it…will bear fruit to completion,

that good and TRUTHFUL heart–comes from hearing the Word and Seeing–the true state.

Unregenerate…

always needing the ‘laws’ to hide in, the roles, the measurements–lest they See, what they /me truly are, in God’s Light.

Its a protection, a lying one but protection nethertheless, but Light, will expose it, eventually. And then, there is that choice–repent, and TURN to God’s Solution or hold on, to the LIE.

Religion, roles, all of that, is the number one LIE, I think…and the most, deceptive of all.

It explains why those ‘texts’ are always the focus, of measurement for so many [and other texts too, not just the roles and so forth] and until one sees, they Can’t get it. You just can’t,

and that is why, like in Corinthians, the carnality, flourishes, and in Galatians, same thing, who has bewitched you,

interesting term that one, bewitched.

To close, I don’t know what happens really from here…all I do know, is I don’t think, once you see, you see anything in the same way again. And it sort of starts to make sense,

but I have no words, to explain it…but I do know this, the road, the walk, begins, to find out, what Love, who God, really is and what its really, all about.

Jane

Comment by Jane

February 2, 2010 @ 2:16 pm

What is so horrible about this too, is HOW many, I condemned, in so many ways, trying to be ‘good’ for God, that whole LIE thing, that’s the Worst part, it really is, to SEE that ‘hate’,

and that murder. [in the heart] and to well, see,

and the scary thing is, then it has to be Faith, from then on out, not the attempt of the ‘flesh’, that Pride, that LIE, [that can be so many lies],

we may ‘think’ we know what mercy and all of it is, but, well, good and evil, always in that, you know, hard hearts, live and feed on good and evil,

then all the brokenness and yes, realization that yes, though we are rotten to the core those harms ARE real, can’t deny them, and we draw on them so much, whether we know it or not–the flesh does not forget, maybe that is what the ‘thorns in flesh are’,

but anyway, its not like this big Victory you know when you See, but its a terrifying place to be because then you KNOW, in a REAL way, what judgment is, and that Arrogance–you see it and funny thing is, I find it is like always jumping up, you know,

Paul was NOT joking when he says it has to die daily. But that don’t come from rules/and laws, that’s the Other deception, and a Big one at that.

IF I burn my body or sell all to the poor or speak in tongues of Angels or have all wisdom and mysteries or if I martyr myself/self denial/will worship,

IT PROFITS ME NOTHING,

if I HAVE NOT LOVE.

and NOT hypocritical love either, religious ‘love’,

and you know, LOL, its not talking about it or writing either,

its Living it, step by step–maybe why James said, do not desire to teach, they get the greater condemnation,

ain’t That the truth!

I guess what I am saying, while all this is important, in a way, it doesn’t matter either, you know, its what we Live, who we ARE, not what we say or tell, what we are IN, BEING,

getting there though, is another thing altogether, and if I have learned Anything, through all this,

gender roles, submission, applications, are nothing but dead religion and works–because they aren’t Things we ‘do’,

they are Things that Become, fluid, when we are Transformed, into the Image of Christ.

IF its being shoved down throats and taught and demanded, it Ain’t of God,

its just like anything else, human attempts, of righteousness rather than coming to the Light, and being exposed,

naked, wretched, miserable and all. And saying, knowing in TRUTH,

GUILTY GOD, GUILTY…NO SAVING MYSELF– JESUS, HERE I AM. WHAT DO I DO NOW…

and then, its what HE does, says, and none of this other, matters….

Love,

Jane

Comment by Jane

February 2, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

Two days ago, I was listening to this song, over and over, getting to this place, funny its the song of the movie Transformers…I believe Jesus led me to this song for a reason [I had not heard it prior] and now I know why, what it means…

the New Divide, death to life, it isn’t, by roles or rules or mental belief, its much, much more, but to GET there, you got to FACE THE DARK, IN ONE’S SELF, AND COME WITH IT ALL, TO GOD, NO HIDING, NO TELLING HIM WHAT ‘YOU HAVE LEARNED HE WANTS TO HEAR’, to COME IN TRUTH,

it ain’t pretty, and its NOT just knowing, you have sinned. I’ve been a Christian, for Years, mentally–but being Truly transformed in heart, and its not a one time thing no way, why I couldn’t understand that when so many were so good, why I wasn’t. I thought I was ‘missing it’, well I was and I wasn’t,

because That truly, is where God wants us to come–it’s not rhetoric, its not end of our selves, its So much more–and its scary, horrifying, no words to Describe that part of it–seeing spiritual death, Really seeing it, but not understanding it, never mind I can’t explain it,

all this religion, Christianity, you know, its missing it, the Words are there but not the Power, why we are NOT seeing it, hearing it, yes, but ARE we seeing it? Like they did in Acts? That kind of Power,

this song, says it well, the thing is, so many no matter WHAT you say to them, won’t get it–be it gender oppression or coveting or racism, etc., its not something that one sees through words or even a consciousness of them [good and evil]

its on a Deeper level…much deeper. And maybe, we just don’t get there at the same time or same place, maybe some never get there [and many won't], but WE can’t bring it about, maybe,

we aren’t supposed to. {?}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HzNfwAt790

Jane [this goes with above replies, where I am at and what I am seeing…pray for our enemies Jesus said, for even the unbelievers love them that love them back…in the Being, its in the Being, and only can be Being, in HIM, WAY, TRUTH, LIFE.

Comment by Deborah

February 2, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

Jane, it’s really cool what God is showing you! :)

Comment by Liz

February 2, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

Thanks for the excellent explanations re those few verses of Paul’s. I am sure that CBE would endorse those sentiments and encourage following the new testament verses in their context and with the whole of the NT in mind.
Whenever verses are looked at in isolation, there emerges wrong doctrine and extremism. So, rather than see Paul as not endorsing women, we can believe that he was encouraging them all the way.

Comment by Frank

February 3, 2010 @ 12:09 am

Leigh, as to why other modern Bible translations fail to translate 1 Cor. 14:36 as does the RSV, I can’t really give you a good answer. I could conjecture or speculate as to why, though I don’t think that would really be useful or helpful. But I do believe the lexical and grammatical evidence supports it. And so, for that reason, it ought to be a common translation of that verse, in my opinion.

For example, Cheryl Schatz, on her “Women In Ministry” blog, has done some extensive studies of 1 Cor. 14:34-40 and its context, citing several lexical and grammatical sources, more up to date than Thayer, which show that Paul is definitely repudiating in verse 36 the negative statements against women that we find in vv. 34-35.

Furthermore, as Gilbert Bilezikian points out in his book, BEYOND SEX ROLES, the disjunctive he’ is used twice in this verse. So, to get the real flavor of Paul’s negative response to this erroneous teaching, he suggests the verse be translated something like this: “What! Since when have you become the source of divine revelation so that you can make up your own rules? Ridiculous! Or do you really think that you alone are the exclusive recipients of God’s revealed word?”

Another passage in 1 Corinthians that is similar to this passage, is where Paul refers to the false view of the Corinthians and then strongly repudiates it, is 1 Cor. 1:11-17. Though in 1:13, I believe, Paul uses a stronger disjunctive to show his abhorence of the party spirit that is causing division in the congregation. Still, the parallels are very striking.

Jane, I couldn’t agree with you more. The church in America is like the Corinthian church in many ways. Love of prestige, power and wealth; flashy piety and emotionalism; a lack of real intellectual and moral depth; the failure to recognize that a Spirit-filled life involves a balance of wisdom, power and love that focuses on promoting the welfare of the whole Christian community, and not just on the individual.

In fact, there are a number of American seminaries, that as part of their curriculum for urban and inner city ministry, require the study and mastery of Paul’s teaching in 1 and 2 Corinthians, because these epistles address many spiritual, moral and social issues that can also be found in American churches.

Comment by Jane

February 4, 2010 @ 11:28 am

“Male Culture–Is it the Jesus Culture”, by Jane [WIP}

I will be writing a series on Male Culture is it Jesus Culture here soon, and I wanted to make mention of it here. Why am I writing this?

After prayer and reflection on the issue of violence against women, the gender role-wars debate, the influence of ‘culture’ kept coming to me, and in prayer I saw numerous things. I do believe the Holy Spirit is leading me here and I believe that this is one main problem that lies at a lot of the root of the problems we are seeing today.

However it is not simply just male culture but there are other influences as well, that I will go into at a later time.

The basis of this thesis is: Colossians 2:6 ”

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

Emphasis on the tradition of men and rudiments of the world.

This thesis will NOT be about differences in gender nor gender roles, marriage, etc., but about Western Male Culture and the Scriptural anti-thesis to those rudiments.

The Holy Spirit will do the rest.

I will post excerpts here, as I write, because you have a varied reader-audience as well as on my blog. I will add the link to the essays with each post, so not to clog up space here.

I hope, that you will find some things useful, to refer too, and that it will build up the faith and encourage reflection, to many.

Thank you,

Love, Peace, and Solidarity in God’s Kingdom,

Jane

Comment by Jane

February 4, 2010 @ 12:51 pm

Thought I’d add, these posts will not be up for a while, due to research, but to give you an idea, where this will be going, Male Culture, is it the Jesus Culture?

Chapter I: Sport, Male Bonding and the Blood Thirst, with a Comparative Analysis with Roman & Greek Blood Sport Culture and the Sport of Killing Christians

Chapter II: Conquest & Dominion & Barbarism [three parts: Animals, Environment, Land} with a Comparative Analysis with Roman & Greek /ancient Cultures, the environmental damage then, the killing of animals for sport, and the male 'body' ideal, particularly related to Violence and Male Supremacy

Chapter III: Labor, Class & Status of Males [again three parts, with an analysis with Roman & Greek/ancient Cultures]

Chapter IV: Male Sexuality and Power, with a Comparative Analysis with Roman & Greek/ancient Cultures in male physique, temple sacrifices and fraternity.

Chapter V: Male Violence and Militarization, with a Comparative Analysis with Roman & Greek/ancient Culture in male to male violence, sodomy [included] and male violence to women.

In all these chapters there will be God’s commands and the Conflict between the Jesus Culture compared to these Culture of Males, and how these Conflicts were a very real part of the early Christian community, among males and Scriptures, relating to such.

OK, well, I’m researching and btw, these are going to be written as a Works In Progress/Copywrite/Creative Commons,

whether I’ll publish as a book, I do not know of yet…this is all I have thus far.

The focus here, again, is the Male Culture and is it the Jesus Culture, but I believe it will be useful, in addressing many of the issues here. I Might be adding a Chapter on Male Barbarism, Pacifism and Individualism and the arguments for that are contrary to scripture, I have not decided for sure on that yet–one justification I see is how men refer to evolution/animal species, but one difference I did notice, animal species may defend territory, but they do NOT commit genocide nor gendercide, so, I might go ahead and write on this,

I don’t know, but there will be a Scriptural Basis, to see what God has to say, about Male Culture.

In solidarity, in Christ and in God’s Kingdom,

Jane

Comment by margaret

February 8, 2010 @ 2:49 pm

great article by sonnet, u know it makes a lot of sense–taken out of context it flies directly in the face of what Jesus and Paul taught and practiced. If u take 1cor whole, u can c that this church had major issues w/ worldliness, disorder and immorality. &I 2 m struck by the similarity btween American churches & the church@corinth

Comment by Marie

February 26, 2010 @ 8:08 pm

I think my problem with the popular interpretation of this verse is that it creates a conflict in the text and casts God as inconsistent. I think it was Paul who said it, but–let every man be a liar except God.

However, the good news is that the problem seems to more arise from the linear literalistic individualistic western perspective (wow, that was a mouthful). As far as these people are concerned, the Bible really does not use rhetorical devices, poetry, metaphors, or any other literary device. Which is funny because Jesus used them all the time to get His points across.

People want the Bible to be a computer manual, when it is really full of rich narrative, parables, poetry, history, biography, and so on. People have to remember that the Bible is a document that was written two thousand years ago in another culture, in another language. The Bible is a very complex document that communicates the most important message–salvation–in terms even a child can understand, but that does not necessarily apply to some of its doctrines. What I am saying is that in order to understand the Bible you have to know some stuff about language, history, philosophy, theology, rhetoric, literary devices, and so on. The most important things, such as moral laws like the ten commandments and salvation, are easy enough for even a child to get, but there are some areas that require intensive research since we are coming at the Bible from a different culture. Its still the Word of God, but God chose to speak through a certain culture in a certain era. And it isn’t that hard, but there is a certain level of humility required.

I would recommend to anyone interested in this issue to read Glenn Miller’s Internet book “Women in the Heart of God”. This is a guy who didn’t just open the Bible and read his own ideas into it–he actually did research, and practically examined the entire Bible, not just a few verses. According to Miller’s analysis of the Bible, women are not second class citizens but are valuable warriors for the kingdom and beloved adopted daughters of the Lord. I would also recommend checking out his site too, since he discusses a lot of other issues.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html

Sorry if I’m babbling, just thought I would get my two cents in.

For that matter, I am really glad I discovered this site. I am usually a lurker on these sites, but I decided to start engaging some more.

Marie

In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world (John 16:33).

Comment by Liz

February 27, 2010 @ 6:51 am

Hi Marie – Just love it when lurkers finally make comment. Hope to read more from you and trust you will find this site a welcoming place to share your heart and thoughts.

Comment by Trevor

February 27, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

Hi Marie,

I too welcome you and commend you for your clear thinking in what you have stated about the Bible as literature. I think that the problem with those who think differently about gender in Scripture is that they are selective in their reading.

They would say that they identify all that you have alluded to in Scripture but that this does not apply to the passages concerning women. In their mind all of these passages are literal and supra cultural, ie. they apply in exactly the same way today as they interpret them as having applied in Paul’s day.

From where we sit this is a very narrow and limiting view, especially in respect to what women can, with God’s blessing, do in the life of the church or home.

Comment by Hailey

March 2, 2010 @ 1:54 am

I have been reading an interlinear greek bible to try to grasp some meaning of the original language which has been so helpful to me understanding the bible and what Paul actually wrote and meant for our faith and the church. But I must admit that I am growing increasingly more frustrated with our current translations of the bible that we have today. It makes me angry. The ancient scribes took such care with the bible, and we take great care in knowing the original languages, but then we go and read our cultural understandings into them. We trust translators the way that the people before the reformation trusted the catholic church to translate the word of God to them. I long for a translated bible in my own language that is closer to how I am beginning to understand what was meant. Even before I finished this blog post, I read this passage in my interlinear bible and I came to the same conclusion as you and that was with NO training. Why is this so difficult?

We protect so fervently what Genesis 3 says, the fall of the world that absolutely distorted and perverted EVERYTHING in creation including our human relationships, setting up patriarchy and feminism as we know it, and yet how much we hold on to these things. These are the things we boast of instead of our Lord. Especially in America, we rah, rah, rah the family, but why? Did not God set for us a new family- the family of God? Did not God set us forth to be fruitful, multiply, and have dominion over the earth in a new way by the Great Commission.

I feel very alone on my Christian campus and it makes me sad- we are all missing out on so much! It’s these human constructs that are the laws that Paul is writing about over and over and over again. It’s these things that Paul was so frustrated with the Galatians over. They just didn’t get it… WE just don’t get it. But I know God will be faithful and this is my hope.

Comment by Lisa

March 2, 2010 @ 5:04 pm

I sympathize with you, Hailey.

I admit that I was complementarian until I started looking into the original Greek and Hebrew. When I share my egalitarian views with others, I feel like I have to “explain” so much, as I have researched this issue for months. I have even heard some people say in response to my views, “Well, my Bible says…” as if their King James Version is God himself speaking. How can we get people to be intellectually honest enough to actually look into the original language? This is probably one of the greatest obstacles for the egalitarian.

Comment by Liz

March 2, 2010 @ 9:40 pm

Many people think that if you have to explain a verses or look at culture etc. you are not believing the bible. It is thought that one should be able to read it as is and take it all at face value.
Interesting thing is of course, that there are many verses which everyone knows couldn’t possibly be meant to be taken literally or for this century and yet the passages concerning women are seen as timeless.
Once again, it is a translation issue and a cross reference issue as all links go back to Genesis and the interpretation of the consequences of the original sin.
Cross references are also seen as God’s word and not to be questioned.

Comment by Claire R.

March 26, 2010 @ 9:42 pm

I believe that there is a proper context and place for women to speak within the church. They have the right to teach to a certain extent. As long as it is not men that they are preaching to, it is okay. I come from a background where women are not allowed to preach on Sunday or during Bible Study. They are only allowed to talk to other women or children. In this way, they are not being discriminated against because they are able to speak to others in the proper context. The Bible says that men are to be the leaders of the church. I am not saying that women are inferior. God loves us all in the same manner, there are just different roles that we are to perform.

Comment by Liz

March 27, 2010 @ 2:29 am

Thank you Claire for writing your point of view. It seems as though you are happy in your church community and we say God bless you as you grow in faith and life.

Comment by Wayne

November 11, 2011 @ 6:31 am

Personally, I think Gordon Fee and especially Phillip Payne have more than adequately demonstrated that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 are scribal margin glosses, not legitimate inspired canon.

Comment by Don

November 11, 2011 @ 9:25 am

I go with the 2 etas in 1 Cor 14:36 as expletives of repudiation repudiating a quote from some at Corinth in 1 Cor 14:34-35. But the scribal gloss is also possible.

Comment by Laurie

November 11, 2011 @ 9:53 am

The fact that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 were found in different places, including the margin of the leaves of papyrus the epistles were written on, should give pause to anyone that they had to have been added. Why were they added is the only real question and dispute IMO. Therefore, they truly should not be used in the formation of any doctrine. Aside from that mention, there are only references of women’s participation in preaching, teaching, leading and ministering.

Don, the 2 etas could also be repudiating those in the original epistle to Paul from the legalistic Jews who were attempting to make a case for special rules favoring the Jewish males.

Comment by Don

November 11, 2011 @ 10:02 am

Yes, the ones in Corinth that Paul is quoting are legalists that go beyond Scripture and find justification in the so-called Oral Torah of the Pharisees, now found in the written Mishnah and this is the “law” that is referred to.

Comment by KR Wordgazer

November 11, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

“They are only allowed to talk to other women or children. In this way, they are not being discriminated against…”

Claire R., try filling in any other group for “women” here, and it will become plain to you that it is discrimination, plain and simple.

“Black people are only allowed to talk to other black people or to children.”

“Poor people are only allowed to talk to other poor people or to children.”

“Hispanics are only allowed to talk to other Hispanics or to children.”

See what I mean?