|
GroupW -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (9/23/2008 9:11:10 PM)
|
Sorry - I didn't mean to offend with my "actually". You're right - there really is something vaguely offensive about that. Never stopped to think about it before, though.
Here's what I wrote last year on the topic of 1 Cor 14 in a response to someone else:
-------------------------------------
1. Don’t you find it extremely odd that while spending most of Galatians arguing that the law has passed away and there is a new covenant in place that Paul suddenly resorts to the law to defend why women should be silent? ("Women should be silent in the church, as the law says...")
2. How do you account for the word in v. 36 that many translations omit – Paul says “What? Did the word of God originate with you?”. There’s what some scholars have called an “exclamation of disassociation” here. It would indicate disagreement with what precedes the “what?” word. What’s he disagreeing with?
3. Don’t you find it odd that Paul is talking about orderly worship saying EVERYONE may speak, then saying “Oh, except women, they have to remain silent”, but then later saying “do not forbid to speak in tongues” without any gender limitation. It seems like the text flip flops here.
4. Doesn’t it make more sense that the passage in versus 34 and 35 reflects Paul quoting a statement by the jewish Christian community that was seeking to impose a jewish order of worship where women were indeed asked to be silent? He then interjects the “WHAT?” exclamation and then proceeds to disagree and says in effect “let them speak.” You will recall that the greek manuscripts don’t punctuate so the translation that we have, though technically correct in lumping it all together,
5. Keeping in mind that the original Greek had no punctuation at all, is it possible that we've misunderstood and mistranslated his intent here?
6. Very few churches take this passage seriously. We find all sorts of justifications of why it's OK for women to speak. I don't see the wiggle room for that. Either women can speak, or they can't.
So, my point being this: wouldn’t the passage read more consistently if it were punctuated thusly: (from the American Standard starting at 14:31)
---------------------------------------
…For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets; for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace.
(Adding quotes to denote Paul quoting a statement he is disputing) “As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.”
(End quote)
What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. But let all things be done decently and in order.
--------------------------------------
Punctuated this way, the troublesome reference to the law is mitigated completely as is the dissonance between the use of “all” in being able to speak in the section before and the generic command not to forbid speech in the section following. Overall, it’s got a much better flow and avoids having to take a more conflicted & subjective position that Paul really didn’t mean “silent” but something a bit more moderated.
|
|
|
|