Silent Women Wearing Hats, Part 2

Does Your Theology Do This?The pattern I pointed out yesterday in 1 Corinthians was that often in the book there was a rather dramatic statement that when examined looked wrong. I doubt there are too many people who think that husbands and wives should not have martial relations as 1 Corinthians 7:1 seems to say.  Yet that was the interpretation given by many in the early church even though that interpretation was contradicted by the next verses. So the pattern is that the rather odd sounding statement is then directly contradicted by the next few verses. Of course a portion of the church decided to take this exactly as it is written, and ignore the context in order to do so. This is done today in the next scripture I will address. 

In addition to the two examples I gave in I Corinthians 6 and the one I just mentioned in I Corinthians 7, there is another example of this pattern I wish to point out that is in 1 Corinthians 14:

³⁴ Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. ³⁵ If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Oh how much I enjoyed this scripture as an immature teen. Based on little snatches of conversations over the years I am afraid that many grown men are teenagers in disguise. 

What about this scripture does not seem right? 

Corinth TodayThe first problem is that we know from Church History that women were not silent during services in the First Century Church. In this very same book in the 11th chapter, Paul tells us that women were to prophesy. The only issue for Paul seems to be that when women do so they should wear a hat! (As you might guess I will talk about this in part III on Monday.) How much sense does it make for Paul to mention women as preachers (remembering that prophecy for the early church mostly fit into the category of preaching) in chapter 11 as normative for the church, yet just three chapters later forbid it? 

A second problem is that there is nowhere in the law where women were forbidden to speak in religious services. Genesis 3 is often advocated as the scripture that is being referenced. However this is a faulty interpretation of Genesis 3. The "curse" given to Eve is that she will be dominated by her husband, which is outside of God's original intent in the same way that the "curse" on Adam, that there will be great hardship in providing food for the family, was not God's original intent either. Both are the result of sin. 

But there is a kind of law that does demand that women be submissive—oral Jewish law. Here are some examples: 

Ten measures of speech descended to the world; women took nine.  Kiddushin 49b (often speech is translated as gossip) 

One sage, Rabbi Eliezer, went further to forbid teaching Torah to daughters by comparing it to the teaching of “tiflut” (Sotah 21b).

The general consensus of Jewish oral law was that women could not even ask questions of a Rabbi. 

Rabbi Eliezer’s stand was so strong that he refused to answer an intelligent query from a woman who was one of his primary patrons (JT Sotah 3:4). While an opposing sage, Ben-Azzai, contended that fathers must teach their daughters, he garnered minimal support (Otzar Hamelech 1:13), with the historical consensus siding with Rabbi Eliezer. 

Note how well this fits in with 1 Corinthians 14 where one of the issues was women asking question in public of leaders, This was not well received in Judaism. 

In the First Century various parts of the synagogue service would be shared among all men. So in a traditional synagogue service each man would at some point pray this traditional prayer: "Thank you God that you did not make me a woman." While this may have had more to do with the idea that men were favored because they had more religious obligations than women did, the constant repetition of this prayer publicly would have an effect on the attitudes of the ones who recited the prayer, and the ones who heard it.  There is also the traditional Jewish proverb, "It is better to give the law to a Gentile, than to a woman." To understand this proverb fully one has to consider the very low estimation of the Jews toward Gentiles. 

(Note that when one reads the word "law" in the New Testament one should not assume that the written law is what is meant, law can mean many things and is not limited to one meaning. Here it seems very likely the law referred to is the oral law.) 

So the first part of the pattern we noted yesterday does exist here. Things are said that do not fit with the context of 1 Corinthians. The second part of the pattern is that the odd statement is immediately followed by its denial. Is this what we find here? 

³⁶ Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. ³⁸ But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

So the pattern fits when you understand that the word "you" in Greek is in the masculine declension. So a potential translation could go like this:  

³⁶ Or did the word of God originate with you men? Or are you men the only people it has reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. ³⁸ But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

In other words Paul is strongly rebuking those who want to put down women. God can, and does, work through women. 

While I think I have made a good case that Paul is quoting the letter he received and is disagreeing with it, there is another interpretation that needs to be considered. 

Here is how The Message translates this section: 

^34-36Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God's Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking. Do you—both women and men—imagine that you're a sacred oracle determining what's right and wrong? Do you think everything revolves around you?

 ^37-38If any one of you thinks God has something for you to say or has inspired you to do something, pay close attention to what I have written. This is the way the Master wants it. If you won't play by these rules, God can't use you. Sorry.

Since 1 Corinthians 14 deals with speaking in other languages, or "tongues," it certainly makes sense that this was causing chaos in the church—remember that the Corinth Church was a mess. When I was taking Greek at the Assembly of God's Theological Seminary for my Masters in Religious Studies at SMU, this issue came up. I said that while I did not have a lot of experience in charismatic churches, it seemed to me that women did most of the "tongues" speaking. Most there agreed with this, and no one verbally contradicted it. 

But in any event, this interpretation leads to the conclusion that in general women could, did, and should speak. But in this particular area, the women needed to stop the chaos that such charismatic activity can bring. 

The important thing for us men to remember is the danger of trying to silence women. 

³⁶ Or did the word of God originate with you men? Or are you men the only people it has reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. ³⁸ But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

I do not wish for God to ignore me! 

Silent Women Wearing Hats (Part I)

An Example of a Gnostic HierarchyIt is important when interpreting the Bible to look for patterns. One interesting pattern in 1 Corinthians may help us understand some very difficult verses that Paul wrote.

The first two examples of this pattern are in 1 Corinthians 6. I begin in the KJV:

¹²All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

¹³Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

¹⁴And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

¹⁵Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

¹⁶What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

¹⁷But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

First we need a little context. The Gnostics were a very odd group that existed in the Christian Church for many centuries. They were radical dualists. The general idea was that the body was bad and evil. This principle led to two false ethical patterns. The first is summarized in the idea "All things are lawful for me." The idea was that since the body was worthless, anything you did with the body was of no importance. If you are hungry you eat, if you are horny you ****. The main concern of theGnostics was that you did not really want to have children as the flesh is bad, so why trap more of God's spark into flesh? I do not want to go into much detail here, but imagine a philosophy that had no restrictions on sexual activity, yet did not want children. You fill in the blanks.

Can we take the phrase in verse 12 "all things are lawful for me" and apply this universally? I hope you agree with me that one should not do this. But this is exactly what the Gnostics at Corinth were saying. Paul is quoting them and then immediately disagreeing. "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats" is also what the gnostics were saying. As Paul makes clear they are saying this as an analogy for sexual activity. It’s natural. Just Do It. I do not think this is what Nike has in mind (or maybe they do not care what you do as long as you wear Nikes when you do it.). It is certainly not what Paul thinks is correct.

So what is the pattern? Paul says something that makes no sense when you consider everything that is said in the Bible and what Paul says elsewhere. This statement is immediately followed by another statement that contradicts it. It thus seems obvious that Paul is quoting the letter that the Corinthians wrote to him, and is correcting them.

This is actually not a novel idea I invented, but the standard interpretation of these verses. Here is the NIV translation of this same passage, to show this point:

^{Gnostic Scriptures Were Discovered At Nag Hammadi12} “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. ¹³ You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. ¹⁴ By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. ¹⁵ Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! ¹⁶ Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” ¹⁷ But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

It is a common, even expected, interpretation to look at 1 Corinthians this way. (Let me add here that I would put the quotation marks differently than the NIV did. “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both” should instead be, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food," and God will destroy them both. The latter part is Paul's disagreement with the Gnostics.)

Understanding that Koine Greek had no punctuation marks and the Greek Scriptures were written in all capital letters with no spaces between the words, you can see how this would be confusing to people later. The Corinthians would have known the questions they asked of Paul, and they would know their own situation. We often do not know either of these. One thing we are told in 1 Corinthians 1 was that Paul was in contact with some people in Corinth. “¹¹ My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.” Yes, Corinth was a mess.

The second version of Gnosticism was that since the body was bad, all sex, even between married couples, was forbidden—eating meat or drinking wine?—do not even think about it! This is what Paul is opposing when he wrote the book of Colossians, and he also addresses it in 2 Timothy.

In particular Paul was asked about this by the Corinthians. It is recorded in 1 Corinthians 7:

¹ Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

In this verse it is rather explicit that Paul is responding to the letter he had received from the household of Chloe. If the pattern I am suggesting repeats itself then following this quote will be Paul's disagreement with this.

² But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. ³ The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

Note that the word for man and woman in verse 1 is the same word that is translated husband and wife in verse 2-4. So what the apostle Paul is being asked is this:

“It is good for a husband not to have sexual relations with his wife.”

Paul disagrees.

In fact Paul says it is wrong for a husband or a wife to deprive the other.

Two historical examples might help in our understanding.

Jerome, an early Church father who translated the Bible into Latin, would always ask married couples if they had had sex in the previous week. If they said yes, he would refuse them communion. Clement said that it was all right for a married couple to have sex, if they were trying to have children, but if they were not ... The impact of the Gnostics continued for centuries, changing the church into something entirely different than what it had been in the first century.

Paul was being used by some in the early church to make him out to be an advocate of things he disagreed with. Paul was not against married couples having sex. Paul is still misinterpreted today as we will see next time when I write about "Silent Woman Wearing Hats."

Judgment Day 's Not Coming

Ancient prophets often were musicians, or hired them for their presentations. In our modern society the role of the prophet is fulfilled by the musician. I am not saying that this song is in anyway inspired by God, but it is prophetic-suitable for the prophecypodcast.com. 

As the chorus of the following song tells us:

Judgment Day's not coming,
Judgment Day's not coming,
Judgment Day's not coming-soon enough. 

Why? The blood of our victims cries to us from the ground, like the ancient blood of Abel. We, like Cain, cannot hear the cries, we are deaf. What mark, like Cain, do we wear? Is it the mark of the beast? 

Probably not everyone's "cup of tea," but I like it. 

Here are the Lyrics:

Everybody wants to live in a lie,
But why should we delude ourselves?
It's not as if we can't see something's wrong,
Where's the duty to what's right?
Intentions end with empty words,
And chaos replaces order.
Those who shout loudest, impose their will,
Upholding laws that serve a few,
Declaring peace while the sirens sing,
In the name of progress, in the name of madness.
Drum beats faster, crowd shouts louder,
And chaos replaces order.
I want justice for a voice that can't be heard,
Vindication for every suffering and hurt,
Let retribution hold dominion over Earth,
Because judgement day's not coming,
Judgement day's not coming soon enough.
Because judgement day's not coming,
Judgement day's not coming,
Judgement day's not coming,
Judgement day's not coming soon enough.
I want justice for a voice that can't be heard,
Vindication for every suffering and hurt,
Let retribution hold dominion over Earth,
Because judgement day's not coming,
Judgement day's not coming.
I want justice for a voice that can't be heard,
Vindication for every suffering and hurt,
Let retribution hold dominion over Earth,
Because judgement day's not coming,
Judgement day's not coming soon enough.

Waste Of Time

I have an acquaintance, you would think he would be a friend, but we are not. Not even on Facebook. We go to similar churches. We are roughly the same age. Right now he is a missionary in India. I even support the ministry that is helping his efforts. I think that many who read my blog will know who he is. But yet we are not friends. Why? Politics.

This is a Still from the Famous Johnson Daisy Ad. A Vote For Johnson Was A Vote For Peace.I heard it said once that if Satan cannot get at you any other way he will waste your time. What is a bigger waste of time than politics? It would be an unusual election where the elites that run the country let voters decide anything.

I was too young to vote in the 1964 election but I remember an old joke from that election: "In the 1964 election I was told by some pundits that if I voted for Goldwater we would soon be in a land war in Asia. I voted for Goldwater, and yes we were soon in a land war in Asia!" But not because Goldwater won. He didn’t. Johnson did. Voting for Goldwater or Johnson in 1964 did not matter on the issue of Vietnam. Voting for Obama or McCain did not matter on the issues of war that we have today.

Sure there are differences. Aqua is a different color than turquoise, isn't it?

Ron Paul supporters are finding this out. Ron Paul is so different that he cannot be allowed to even have a modest success. A lot of delegates are chosen by convoluted caucus systems. This is how Obama won. He concentrated on delegates, not votes. Paul is trying such a strategy. He is having less success. One reason is that the establishment is cheating.

If you want to understand why so many Paul supporters are angry, watch the video.

This is happening all over the country. The strategy of the establishment is now to forbid video recordings, so you may not see too many more videos like this. Here is an article about a Missouri Caucus.

In St. Charles, an exurb of St. Louis and one of the state’s largest GOP counties, Paul supporters sought to elect their own chairman and adopt their own rules when proceedings opened — both of which are part of standard caucus rules and procedure. But as they argued with the caucus chair, Paul supporters held video cameras — against caucus rules, according to a GOP official who was there — and things became contentious.

(This is the end of the quote. If I was a conspiracy theorist I would conclude that there was a plot to keep me from formatting the quote properly. But alas I am sure there is some emdeded code I can not get rid of. One hour is enough time spent on formatting one blog post.)  

No delegates were selected, yet a full slate of delegates was sent to the state convention. It will be interesting to see how that will turn out. My guess is that those arrested were those that refused to turn off their cameras. If you actually watched the video, you can see why they wanted the videos on, and why the establishment wanted them off.

I was called a coward on Facebook because I pointed these things out and said I would not vote for Romney. Maybe I am a coward. Cowardice can serve you well: as the Chinese say, the tallest tree is chopped down first.

I am reminded of a game my boys and I played at Shoney's. It was a rather typical kid’s game, heads you went one space, tails you went two, with Shoney the bear smiling in approval. We discovered quickly that there was one section where you needed to be able to move three spaces from a coin toss to pass. A coin does not have three sides. We quit the game, as it was impossible to win. Paul supporters will quit the "game" when they realize they can't win. Hello President Obama.

As you can see the outcome of the Republican nomination is all but decided already—it is Romney's turn.

So the whole process is a waste of time. Remember what Joseph Stalin probably never said, "It does not matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes." Are Ron Paul supporters naïve to expect anything different? Yes. 

Public Education?

If you assume the purpose of education is to think and learn, are you confident in that assurtion? 

I think it far more likely that our educational troubles are not the result of any conspiracy-although I remember the socialist indoctrination I recieved in 12th grade civics. It is simple incompetance of administrators, combined with political correctness that is destroying our country. Make no mistake, the country is being destroyed.