Many of us were raised in churches that taught that women should be silent in the church because of the teachings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34. When we read the passage, sure enough, we see the following words on the pages of the Bible: "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak
registry cleaners...
I was wondering if you ever considered changing the structure of your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of t...
car auctions...
Hi there, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i was just curious if you get a lot of spam comments? If so how do you stop it, any plugin or anything you can suggest? I get so much lately it's driving me mad so any help is very mu...
Agreed, 100%
There's also some cool archeological research being done about head coverings. In Corinth, it is believed that the only women with flowing, unkempt hair were the temple prostitutes -- not exactly a group to emulate.
I would apply the same hermeneutical principals you have to the head coverings piece as well -- it's specific the one church in a particular culture, and if the command is abstracted without attention to that fact, then the only possible outcome is misinterpretation.
While I agree with the conclusion, I think some of the excusing of Paul is detrimental. Also, while women and men were separated in the synagogue, Paul is not talking about the synagogue. He is addressing the community of Christians (or followers of 'The Way') who were meeting together. The mere fact that the women and men met in the same room is extremely progressive for the day and age. Why can't we just say that Paul's instructions were appropriate (in his view) for his context, but they are not applicable today. The 'nugget' to take from the passage is that Paul is being consistent with the progressive actions of Jesus. Jesus spoke to women in public. Paul allows for men and women to worship together. Today, we ordain women and expect them to be equal contributing members to the church. As Walter Brueggemann says (paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr.): "The arc of the gospel bends towards inclusion." For the time period Paul in writing in, this is a very inclusive passage. We should stop trying to explain away anti-feminist passages. We should admit that the words and actions were not in line with the original plan of God, but that there are elements of a shift towards adopting that plan as the model of the church. Today, we are still a part of that shift, but many years from now, our spiritual descendants will be appalled at our lack of understanding regarding equality. However, hopefully they will see that we moved in a positive direction just as Paul does by instructing men and women to worship together in the same room.
Had men been the group disrupting worship, I'm sure Paul would have admonished them as well. Paul certainly had no problem rebuking men in Corinth... he even excommunicates one in 1 Cor. 5.
Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying -- and the sarcasm isn't lost on me.
Actually, not exactly. The early Christian communities attended the synagogues, but their home churches did not mirror the synagogue. The fact that women and men were sitting together is evidence of that. Also, the presence of gentile believers mixed with jewish believers reveals a difference between the synagogue and the early Christian meetings; another example of the bend towards inclusion that began with Jesus and continues (hopefully) today.
Haven't we had this discussion here on exactly the same subject. Mimi, what new insights or revelations have you introduced? The only thing that has changed is the names of the bloggers. Maybe Sojo should simply post a box here and let us vote on whether we favor keeping the fairer sex in their place or allowing them access to our pulpits (the sermons would definitely be at least 30 minutes longer).
Having lived in Middle Eastern cultures, I favor an additional interpretation of I Corinthians, without disagreeing with anything you posted here- that there were issues of sexuality and distraction that Paul was addressing. In Middle Eastern cultures today, and Roman culture in the time of the Early Church, a woman's hair was/is considered highly sexual. Just as in the South Sea Islands or parts of Africa, a woman doesn't need to cover her top, but we in the US would find that rather distracting if she didn't, so it is in these cultures with a woman's hair. Perhaps a better example, because it varies by location, is nude sunbathing now largely accepted in Europe, but not in most places in the US; or the typical Finnish sauna involving both genders nude, whereas the US has separate genders or in bathing suits. It's a matter of cultural standards of propriety, and varying levels of propriety in varying areas.
Thus, if women were to come in to church with their heads uncovered, it would be seen as with the prostitutes on the street, and heavily distracting to those trying to focus on worship and prayer and God. And thus, the head covering indeed becomes a "sign of authority upon her head"- she is not seen as a floozie or prostitute, and can exercise her God-given authority to preach and prophesy in the church.
If this were true, more intriguing to me is the application today. In the Middle East, it might be a direct application, but in the US, obviously there is no sexual issue with a woman having her head covered or not. There may be (and I say may, I have hesitations to even suggest) an application in some cases where women come to church wearing very revealing attire by American standards. And yes, the same would apply to men, too, though in my limited experience, and as a man, I see that happen far less. A woman trying to stand up and prophesy in church in a bikini is going to be distracting, and also significantly lessen her authority to do so in the estimation of the church body.
Actually--I think it isn't unreasonable to assume men were contributing to the disorder, too. If their wives were shouting across the aisle to ask questions, men likely were shouting back to answer them. Paul, by directly speaking to the cause of the problem, is also indirectly telling the men to be quiet, too.
Agreed, 100%
There's also some cool archeological research being done about head coverings. In Corinth, it is believed that the only women with flowing, unkempt hair were the temple prostitutes -- not exactly a group to emulate.
I would apply the same hermeneutical principals you have to the head coverings piece as well -- it's specific the one church in a particular culture, and if the command is abstracted without attention to that fact, then the only possible outcome is misinterpretation.
While I agree with the conclusion, I think some of the excusing of Paul is detrimental. Also, while women and men were separated in the synagogue, Paul is not talking about the synagogue. He is addressing the community of Christians (or followers of 'The Way') who were meeting together. The mere fact that the women and men met in the same room is extremely progressive for the day and age. Why can't we just say that Paul's instructions were appropriate (in his view) for his context, but they are not applicable today. The 'nugget' to take from the passage is that Paul is being consistent with the progressive actions of Jesus. Jesus spoke to women in public. Paul allows for men and women to worship together. Today, we ordain women and expect them to be equal contributing members to the church. As Walter Brueggemann says (paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr.): "The arc of the gospel bends towards inclusion." For the time period Paul in writing in, this is a very inclusive passage. We should stop trying to explain away anti-feminist passages. We should admit that the words and actions were not in line with the original plan of God, but that there are elements of a shift towards adopting that plan as the model of the church. Today, we are still a part of that shift, but many years from now, our spiritual descendants will be appalled at our lack of understanding regarding equality. However, hopefully they will see that we moved in a positive direction just as Paul does by instructing men and women to worship together in the same room.
Had men been the group disrupting worship, I'm sure Paul would have admonished them as well. Paul certainly had no problem rebuking men in Corinth... he even excommunicates one in 1 Cor. 5.
Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying -- and the sarcasm isn't lost on me.
Actually, not exactly. The early Christian communities attended the synagogues, but their home churches did not mirror the synagogue. The fact that women and men were sitting together is evidence of that. Also, the presence of gentile believers mixed with jewish believers reveals a difference between the synagogue and the early Christian meetings; another example of the bend towards inclusion that began with Jesus and continues (hopefully) today.
Haven't we had this discussion here on exactly the same subject. Mimi, what new insights or revelations have you introduced? The only thing that has changed is the names of the bloggers. Maybe Sojo should simply post a box here and let us vote on whether we favor keeping the fairer sex in their place or allowing them access to our pulpits (the sermons would definitely be at least 30 minutes longer).
Having lived in Middle Eastern cultures, I favor an additional interpretation of I Corinthians, without disagreeing with anything you posted here- that there were issues of sexuality and distraction that Paul was addressing. In Middle Eastern cultures today, and Roman culture in the time of the Early Church, a woman's hair was/is considered highly sexual. Just as in the South Sea Islands or parts of Africa, a woman doesn't need to cover her top, but we in the US would find that rather distracting if she didn't, so it is in these cultures with a woman's hair. Perhaps a better example, because it varies by location, is nude sunbathing now largely accepted in Europe, but not in most places in the US; or the typical Finnish sauna involving both genders nude, whereas the US has separate genders or in bathing suits. It's a matter of cultural standards of propriety, and varying levels of propriety in varying areas.
Thus, if women were to come in to church with their heads uncovered, it would be seen as with the prostitutes on the street, and heavily distracting to those trying to focus on worship and prayer and God. And thus, the head covering indeed becomes a "sign of authority upon her head"- she is not seen as a floozie or prostitute, and can exercise her God-given authority to preach and prophesy in the church.
If this were true, more intriguing to me is the application today. In the Middle East, it might be a direct application, but in the US, obviously there is no sexual issue with a woman having her head covered or not. There may be (and I say may, I have hesitations to even suggest) an application in some cases where women come to church wearing very revealing attire by American standards. And yes, the same would apply to men, too, though in my limited experience, and as a man, I see that happen far less. A woman trying to stand up and prophesy in church in a bikini is going to be distracting, and also significantly lessen her authority to do so in the estimation of the church body.
Actually--I think it isn't unreasonable to assume men were contributing to the disorder, too. If their wives were shouting across the aisle to ask questions, men likely were shouting back to answer them. Paul, by directly speaking to the cause of the problem, is also indirectly telling the men to be quiet, too.
Angielski Chorzów...
Hi, i read your blog from time to time and i own a similar one and i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam responses? If so how do you prevent it, any plugin or anything you can suggest? I get so much lately it's driving me insane so any help is...
car auctions...
Hello! Quick question that's totally off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My website looks weird when browsing from my apple iphone. I'm trying to find a template or plugin that might be able to correct this problem. If you h...
how to keep a man interested...
Hello there! I could have sworn I've been to this site before but after checking through some of the post I realized it's new to me. Nonetheless, I'm definitely happy I found it and I'll be book-marking and checking back frequently!...
Car Auctions...
Hi! Quick question that's entirely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My blog looks weird when viewing from my iphone 4. I'm trying to find a template or plugin that might be able to fix this issue. If you have any suggesti...
For Your Information...
Im brand-new to blogs and recently heard about trackbacks, which I guess is a means for me to recognize your internet site through a linkback through my blog. I discovered your internet site in the "currently buzzing" part of one of the bookmarking ...
I just linked to your site...
Im new to blogging and recently found out about trackbacks, which I reckon is a way for me to recognize your website through a linkback through my blog. I discovered your web site in the "currently buzzing" segment of one of the bookmarking sites th...
Mimi's comments are not "excusing" Paul. Her remarks fit exactly with a thorough exegesis and correct translation of the underlying Greek text. Paul has suffered from the sexist biases of his translators and interpreters.
"Gune," the word translated "woman," is also the most common word for "wife" (see 1 Cor. 7:1-4). The context must be determinative, and v. 35 clearly indicates that these "women" have husbands and are actually "wives".
In the Septuagint, the Old Testament for Greek speakers, "subjection" is used only in the relationships between people and their rulers or people and God. It is never used to define the deference of a wife to a husband. In v. 32 we see that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophet, and ultimately to God (v.33)
That Paul is not making a universal application is indicated by the use of a "first class condition" at the beginning of v.35. The word should be translated "since," not "if," showing that Paul was referring to a specific situation which had already happened, and that the "speaking" of v.34 is the "questioning" of v.35.
The word "be silent" simply means "not to create a disturbance verbally," as the word is used in v.28 and v.30.
The passage should be translated something like this: "The wives, in the churches, let them not cause a commotion, for it is not permitted for them to be
asking questions out loud. They should be subject to God [just like the tongues-speakers and prophets is vv.27-33]. But since they wish to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for them to be causing a commotion in church."
The passage should be translated something like this: "The wives
Butler Auto Auction...
Hey, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog in Chrome, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, very goo...
les31,
I appreciate your comments, however, you begin with the assumption that the long held translations were all made by those with a sexist bent while you and Mimi are finally getting it right. Though I might agree with your rendering of the Greek, I think your foundation is too much of a generalization.
While ???? might typically be translated wife, the other Greek word for woman, ????????, would not have been appropriate for the Corinthian church since it generally assumed virginity. Many of the female converts in Corinth had been prostitutes and so ????, in this case (however you are correct that normally it should be 'wife') is more appropriately 'woman'.
But, let us use wife... Paul is still, even if just in this one instance as you suggest (and I would be inclined to agree), ordering wives to not raise a commotion and look to their husbands for instruction rather than giving them an equal place.
Yes, Paul may have suffered from sexist biases - though to assume all translators of Paul were sexist until our enlightened time is an unfair characterization - but that is because: one, Paul's words are very easily interpreted as sexist to our modern ears, and two, perhaps by our standards Paul was sexist. Therefore, to impute a modern egalitarianism to Paul is to attempt to excuse him.
I stand by my comment that Paul, when measured by our standards and I believe by the eventual ultimate plan of God, was sexist, but for his time what seems sexist was actually a very inclusive position to take.
Sorry if this seems jumbled... I have been up for 32 hours straight.
Mimi's comments are not "excusing" Paul. Her remarks fit exactly with a thorough exegesis and correct translation of the underlying Greek text. Paul has suffered from the sexist biases of his translators and interpreters.
"Gune," the word translated "woman," is also the most common word for "wife" (see 1 Cor. 7:1-4). The context must be determinative, and v. 35 clearly indicates that these "women" have husbands and are actually "wives".
In the Septuagint, the Old Testament for Greek speakers, "subjection" is used only in the relationships between people and their rulers or people and God. It is never used to define the deference of a wife to a husband. In v. 32 we see that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophet, and ultimately to God (v.33)
That Paul is not making a universal application is indicated by the use of a "first class condition" at the beginning of v.35. The word should be translated "since," not "if," showing that Paul was referring to a specific situation which had already happened, and that the "speaking" of v.34 is the "questioning" of v.35.
The word "be silent" simply means "not to create a disturbance verbally," as the word is used in v.28 and v.30.
The passage should be translated something like this: "The wives, in the churches, let them not cause a commotion, for it is not permitted for them to be
asking questions out loud. They should be subject to God [just like the tongues-speakers and prophets is vv.27-33]. But since they wish to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for them to be causing a commotion in church."
The passage should be translated something like this: "The wives
nissan france...
Awesome post, I've linked back to your blog here http://www.vwsuv.net/sites-we-like/ return the favor if you can, thanks!...
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
Agreed, 100%
There's also some cool archeological research being done about head coverings. In Corinth, it is believed that the only women with flowing, unkempt hair were the temple prostitutes -- not exactly a group to emulate.
I would apply the same hermeneutical principals you have to the head coverings piece as well -- it's specific the one church in a particular culture, and if the command is abstracted without attention to that fact, then the only possible outcome is misinterpretation.
Agreed, 100%
There's also some cool archeological research being done about head coverings. In Corinth, it is believed that the only women with flowing, unkempt hair were the temple prostitutes -- not exactly a group to emulate.
I would apply the same hermeneutical principals you have to the head coverings piece as well -- it's specific the one church in a particular culture, and if the command is abstracted without attention to that fact, then the only possible outcome is misinterpretation.
While I agree with the conclusion, I think some of the excusing of Paul is detrimental. Also, while women and men were separated in the synagogue, Paul is not talking about the synagogue. He is addressing the community of Christians (or followers of 'The Way') who were meeting together. The mere fact that the women and men met in the same room is extremely progressive for the day and age. Why can't we just say that Paul's instructions were appropriate (in his view) for his context, but they are not applicable today. The 'nugget' to take from the passage is that Paul is being consistent with the progressive actions of Jesus. Jesus spoke to women in public. Paul allows for men and women to worship together. Today, we ordain women and expect them to be equal contributing members to the church. As Walter Brueggemann says (paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr.): "The arc of the gospel bends towards inclusion." For the time period Paul in writing in, this is a very inclusive passage. We should stop trying to explain away anti-feminist passages. We should admit that the words and actions were not in line with the original plan of God, but that there are elements of a shift towards adopting that plan as the model of the church. Today, we are still a part of that shift, but many years from now, our spiritual descendants will be appalled at our lack of understanding regarding equality. However, hopefully they will see that we moved in a positive direction just as Paul does by instructing men and women to worship together in the same room.
While I agree with the conclusion, I think some of the excusing of Paul is detrimental. Also, while women and men were separated in the synagogue, Paul is not talking about the synagogue. He is addressing the community of Christians (or followers of 'The Way') who were meeting together. The mere fact that the women and men met in the same room is extremely progressive for the day and age. Why can't we just say that Paul's instructions were appropriate (in his view) for his context, but they are not applicable today. The 'nugget' to take from the passage is that Paul is being consistent with the progressive actions of Jesus. Jesus spoke to women in public. Paul allows for men and women to worship together. Today, we ordain women and expect them to be equal contributing members to the church. As Walter Brueggemann says (paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr.): "The arc of the gospel bends towards inclusion." For the time period Paul in writing in, this is a very inclusive passage. We should stop trying to explain away anti-feminist passages. We should admit that the words and actions were not in line with the original plan of God, but that there are elements of a shift towards adopting that plan as the model of the church. Today, we are still a part of that shift, but many years from now, our spiritual descendants will be appalled at our lack of understanding regarding equality. However, hopefully they will see that we moved in a positive direction just as Paul does by instructing men and women to worship together in the same room.
Had men been the group disrupting worship, I'm sure Paul would have admonished them as well. Paul certainly had no problem rebuking men in Corinth... he even excommunicates one in 1 Cor. 5.
Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying -- and the sarcasm isn't lost on me.
Had men been the group disrupting worship, I'm sure Paul would have admonished them as well. Paul certainly had no problem rebuking men in Corinth... he even excommunicates one in 1 Cor. 5.
Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying -- and the sarcasm isn't lost on me.
Actually, not exactly. The early Christian communities attended the synagogues, but their home churches did not mirror the synagogue. The fact that women and men were sitting together is evidence of that. Also, the presence of gentile believers mixed with jewish believers reveals a difference between the synagogue and the early Christian meetings; another example of the bend towards inclusion that began with Jesus and continues (hopefully) today.
Actually, not exactly. The early Christian communities attended the synagogues, but their home churches did not mirror the synagogue. The fact that women and men were sitting together is evidence of that. Also, the presence of gentile believers mixed with jewish believers reveals a difference between the synagogue and the early Christian meetings; another example of the bend towards inclusion that began with Jesus and continues (hopefully) today.
Haven't we had this discussion here on exactly the same subject. Mimi, what new insights or revelations have you introduced? The only thing that has changed is the names of the bloggers. Maybe Sojo should simply post a box here and let us vote on whether we favor keeping the fairer sex in their place or allowing them access to our pulpits (the sermons would definitely be at least 30 minutes longer).
Haven't we had this discussion here on exactly the same subject. Mimi, what new insights or revelations have you introduced? The only thing that has changed is the names of the bloggers. Maybe Sojo should simply post a box here and let us vote on whether we favor keeping the fairer sex in their place or allowing them access to our pulpits (the sermons would definitely be at least 30 minutes longer).
Having lived in Middle Eastern cultures, I favor an additional interpretation of I Corinthians, without disagreeing with anything you posted here- that there were issues of sexuality and distraction that Paul was addressing. In Middle Eastern cultures today, and Roman culture in the time of the Early Church, a woman's hair was/is considered highly sexual. Just as in the South Sea Islands or parts of Africa, a woman doesn't need to cover her top, but we in the US would find that rather distracting if she didn't, so it is in these cultures with a woman's hair. Perhaps a better example, because it varies by location, is nude sunbathing now largely accepted in Europe, but not in most places in the US; or the typical Finnish sauna involving both genders nude, whereas the US has separate genders or in bathing suits. It's a matter of cultural standards of propriety, and varying levels of propriety in varying areas.
Thus, if women were to come in to church with their heads uncovered, it would be seen as with the prostitutes on the street, and heavily distracting to those trying to focus on worship and prayer and God. And thus, the head covering indeed becomes a "sign of authority upon her head"- she is not seen as a floozie or prostitute, and can exercise her God-given authority to preach and prophesy in the church.
If this were true, more intriguing to me is the application today. In the Middle East, it might be a direct application, but in the US, obviously there is no sexual issue with a woman having her head covered or not. There may be (and I say may, I have hesitations to even suggest) an application in some cases where women come to church wearing very revealing attire by American standards. And yes, the same would apply to men, too, though in my limited experience, and as a man, I see that happen far less. A woman trying to stand up and prophesy in church in a bikini is going to be distracting, and also significantly lessen her authority to do so in the estimation of the church body.
Having lived in Middle Eastern cultures, I favor an additional interpretation of I Corinthians, without disagreeing with anything you posted here- that there were issues of sexuality and distraction that Paul was addressing. In Middle Eastern cultures today, and Roman culture in the time of the Early Church, a woman's hair was/is considered highly sexual. Just as in the South Sea Islands or parts of Africa, a woman doesn't need to cover her top, but we in the US would find that rather distracting if she didn't, so it is in these cultures with a woman's hair. Perhaps a better example, because it varies by location, is nude sunbathing now largely accepted in Europe, but not in most places in the US; or the typical Finnish sauna involving both genders nude, whereas the US has separate genders or in bathing suits. It's a matter of cultural standards of propriety, and varying levels of propriety in varying areas.
Thus, if women were to come in to church with their heads uncovered, it would be seen as with the prostitutes on the street, and heavily distracting to those trying to focus on worship and prayer and God. And thus, the head covering indeed becomes a "sign of authority upon her head"- she is not seen as a floozie or prostitute, and can exercise her God-given authority to preach and prophesy in the church.
If this were true, more intriguing to me is the application today. In the Middle East, it might be a direct application, but in the US, obviously there is no sexual issue with a woman having her head covered or not. There may be (and I say may, I have hesitations to even suggest) an application in some cases where women come to church wearing very revealing attire by American standards. And yes, the same would apply to men, too, though in my limited experience, and as a man, I see that happen far less. A woman trying to stand up and prophesy in church in a bikini is going to be distracting, and also significantly lessen her authority to do so in the estimation of the church body.
Actually--I think it isn't unreasonable to assume men were contributing to the disorder, too. If their wives were shouting across the aisle to ask questions, men likely were shouting back to answer them. Paul, by directly speaking to the cause of the problem, is also indirectly telling the men to be quiet, too.
Actually--I think it isn't unreasonable to assume men were contributing to the disorder, too. If their wives were shouting across the aisle to ask questions, men likely were shouting back to answer them. Paul, by directly speaking to the cause of the problem, is also indirectly telling the men to be quiet, too.
Mimi's comments are not "excusing" Paul. Her remarks fit exactly with a thorough exegesis and correct translation of the underlying Greek text. Paul has suffered from the sexist biases of his translators and interpreters.
"Gune," the word translated "woman," is also the most common word for "wife" (see 1 Cor. 7:1-4). The context must be determinative, and v. 35 clearly indicates that these "women" have husbands and are actually "wives".
In the Septuagint, the Old Testament for Greek speakers, "subjection" is used only in the relationships between people and their rulers or people and God. It is never used to define the deference of a wife to a husband. In v. 32 we see that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophet, and ultimately to God (v.33)
That Paul is not making a universal application is indicated by the use of a "first class condition" at the beginning of v.35. The word should be translated "since," not "if," showing that Paul was referring to a specific situation which had already happened, and that the "speaking" of v.34 is the "questioning" of v.35.
The word "be silent" simply means "not to create a disturbance verbally," as the word is used in v.28 and v.30.
The passage should be translated something like this: "The wives, in the churches, let them not cause a commotion, for it is not permitted for them to be
asking questions out loud. They should be subject to God [just like the tongues-speakers and prophets is vv.27-33]. But since they wish to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for them to be causing a commotion in church."
The passage should be translated something like this: "The wives
Mimi's comments are not "excusing" Paul. Her remarks fit exactly with a thorough exegesis and correct translation of the underlying Greek text. Paul has suffered from the sexist biases of his translators and interpreters.
"Gune," the word translated "woman," is also the most common word for "wife" (see 1 Cor. 7:1-4). The context must be determinative, and v. 35 clearly indicates that these "women" have husbands and are actually "wives".
In the Septuagint, the Old Testament for Greek speakers, "subjection" is used only in the relationships between people and their rulers or people and God. It is never used to define the deference of a wife to a husband. In v. 32 we see that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophet, and ultimately to God (v.33)
That Paul is not making a universal application is indicated by the use of a "first class condition" at the beginning of v.35. The word should be translated "since," not "if," showing that Paul was referring to a specific situation which had already happened, and that the "speaking" of v.34 is the "questioning" of v.35.
The word "be silent" simply means "not to create a disturbance verbally," as the word is used in v.28 and v.30.
The passage should be translated something like this: "The wives, in the churches, let them not cause a commotion, for it is not permitted for them to be
asking questions out loud. They should be subject to God [just like the tongues-speakers and prophets is vv.27-33]. But since they wish to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for them to be causing a commotion in church."
The passage should be translated something like this: "The wives
les31,
I appreciate your comments, however, you begin with the assumption that the long held translations were all made by those with a sexist bent while you and Mimi are finally getting it right. Though I might agree with your rendering of the Greek, I think your foundation is too much of a generalization.
While ???? might typically be translated wife, the other Greek word for woman, ????????, would not have been appropriate for the Corinthian church since it generally assumed virginity. Many of the female converts in Corinth had been prostitutes and so ????, in this case (however you are correct that normally it should be 'wife') is more appropriately 'woman'.
But, let us use wife... Paul is still, even if just in this one instance as you suggest (and I would be inclined to agree), ordering wives to not raise a commotion and look to their husbands for instruction rather than giving them an equal place.
Yes, Paul may have suffered from sexist biases - though to assume all translators of Paul were sexist until our enlightened time is an unfair characterization - but that is because: one, Paul's words are very easily interpreted as sexist to our modern ears, and two, perhaps by our standards Paul was sexist. Therefore, to impute a modern egalitarianism to Paul is to attempt to excuse him.
I stand by my comment that Paul, when measured by our standards and I believe by the eventual ultimate plan of God, was sexist, but for his time what seems sexist was actually a very inclusive position to take.
Sorry if this seems jumbled... I have been up for 32 hours straight.
les31,
I appreciate your comments, however, you begin with the assumption that the long held translations were all made by those with a sexist bent while you and Mimi are finally getting it right. Though I might agree with your rendering of the Greek, I think your foundation is too much of a generalization.
While ???? might typically be translated wife, the other Greek word for woman, ????????, would not have been appropriate for the Corinthian church since it generally assumed virginity. Many of the female converts in Corinth had been prostitutes and so ????, in this case (however you are correct that normally it should be 'wife') is more appropriately 'woman'.
But, let us use wife... Paul is still, even if just in this one instance as you suggest (and I would be inclined to agree), ordering wives to not raise a commotion and look to their husbands for instruction rather than giving them an equal place.
Yes, Paul may have suffered from sexist biases - though to assume all translators of Paul were sexist until our enlightened time is an unfair characterization - but that is because: one, Paul's words are very easily interpreted as sexist to our modern ears, and two, perhaps by our standards Paul was sexist. Therefore, to impute a modern egalitarianism to Paul is to attempt to excuse him.
I stand by my comment that Paul, when measured by our standards and I believe by the eventual ultimate plan of God, was sexist, but for his time what seems sexist was actually a very inclusive position to take.
Sorry if this seems jumbled... I have been up for 32 hours straight.
For Your Information...
Im brand-new to blogs and recently heard about trackbacks, which I guess is a means for me to recognize your internet site through a linkback through my blog. I discovered your internet site in the "currently buzzing" part of one of the bookmarking ...
Car Auctions...
Hi! Quick question that's entirely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My blog looks weird when viewing from my iphone 4. I'm trying to find a template or plugin that might be able to fix this issue. If you have any suggesti...
registry cleaners...
I was wondering if you ever considered changing the structure of your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of t...
car auctions...
Hello! Quick question that's totally off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My website looks weird when browsing from my apple iphone. I'm trying to find a template or plugin that might be able to correct this problem. If you h...
car auctions...
Hi there, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i was just curious if you get a lot of spam comments? If so how do you stop it, any plugin or anything you can suggest? I get so much lately it's driving me mad so any help is very mu...
I just linked to your site...
Im new to blogging and recently found out about trackbacks, which I reckon is a way for me to recognize your website through a linkback through my blog. I discovered your web site in the "currently buzzing" segment of one of the bookmarking sites th...
nissan france...
Awesome post, I've linked back to your blog here http://www.vwsuv.net/sites-we-like/ return the favor if you can, thanks!...
Butler Auto Auction...
Hey, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog in Chrome, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, very goo...
