Christians: how do you interpret 1 Timothy, ch. 2, verses 9-15?

Great Debates
1

I read in the newspaper today that the a leadership committee of the Southern Baptist Convention is recommending that women no longer be allowed to fill the role of pastor. The article says that they base their decision on Bible verses from 1 Timothy, specifically 1 Timothy, chapter 2, verse 11. (see below)

(BTW: My personal recollection is that the Roman Catholic church bases its opposition to woman priests on a different foundation, namely the fact that Jesus had no woman apostles. Is this correct?)

My questions:
[ul][li]How do Christians interpret 1 Timothy, Chapter 2, verses 9-15? (see below) My interpretation (I’m an atheist): Paul was a misogynist.[/li][li]I’m pretty sure that Judaism does not allow for women rabbis. What portion of the scriptures is used for that decision?[/li][li]Do you agree with the Southern Baptist interpretation of the verses quoted below? (I don’t imagine that there will be much debate on this subect on the SDMB). My answer: no.[/ul][/li]1 Timothy (The First Letter from Paul to Timothy)
Chapter 2
verses 9-15: [sup]9[/sup]Similarly, women are to wear suitable clothes and to be dressed quietly and modestly, without braided hair or gold and jewellery or expensive clothes; [sup]10[/sup]their adornment is to do the good works that are proper for women who claim to be religious. [sup]11[/sup]During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. [sup]12[/sup]I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet, [sup]13[/sup]because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, [sup]14[/sup]and it was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. [sup]15[/sup]Nevertheless, she will be saved by child-bearing, provided she lives a sensible life and is constant in faith and love and holiness.

(translation from the New Jerusalem Bible)

2

I’m curious how far they’re willing to take it, myself. No braided hair? No gold or jewellery or expensive clothes? It’s always interesting to me when specific lines of the Bible are adhered to, but parts of the same verses are ignored. I hardly think they’ll boot women out of the church for wearing Prada instead of K-Mart, or if they have the audacity to wear wedding rings. But ordain them? Never in a million!
As for me, I’ll put this forward:
“Let it not be heard … that woman, ‘Last at the cross and first at the sepulchre,’ has no rights which man is bound to respect. In the natural law and in religion the right of woman to fill the highest measure of enlightened understanding and the highest places in government is inalienable, and these rights are ably vindicated by the noblest of both sexes. This is woman’s hour, with all the sweet amenities and its moral and religious reforms.”
–Mary Baker Eddy, 1908

3

Paul was a sexist bigot, and a very poor Christian.( Or maybe he was what JC was saying here: Matt24:24.) Nowhere in any of JC’s words does he say anything like that.

4

Arnold, I’m not a Christian, but my brother, the Methodist minister, agrees with you. His interpretation of 1Tim 2:9-15 is that Paul was a borderline zealot who placed his views of women too far above God’s word, as well as being a product of a misogynistic culture.

5

I never understood that. By the same logic, man ought to be quiet because the elephant was formed first and Adam afterwards.

Even according to Genesis, God created things in ascending order of dominance. First the earth, then the plants, then the animals, then Adam, then Eve. :slight_smile:

6

I suspect that much of what we see, today, as Paul bashing women has more to do with Paul wrestling with the differences between Judaism and his burgeoning new heresy.

As I have noted in other threads, despite Paul’s militant campaign to not impose Judaism on new gentile converts, Paul himself very strictly followed the Mosaic Law. (There was that really big issue of attributing Divinity to Jesus, but his own personal practice appears to have been fairly strict.)

In Judaism, women do not partake in the liturgical rites outside the home. There were (particularly in the first century) no women rabbis, no women cantors, and no other formal role for worship in which women participated. In contrast, in pagan religions (known to Paul) where women participated, they were either separated from society at large to perform secret rites (cf. Vestal Virgins) or they were likely to be involved in orgiastic Dionysian rites or, in a few cases, were “temple harlots.” There was no model for Paul to look on and see women participating in formal liturgies and in positions of authority with men present. (The Vestal Virgins had authority, but it was exercised separately from society, not in mixed worship.)

Looking back to his Jewish roots, Paul declared that the women should follow that example and sit down and shut up.

I am not claiming that Paul would have been embraced by Simone Beauvoir if he were to be plopped down in the middle of the twentieth century. I am suggesting that his motivation may have been different than simple misogyny.

Given that, I look on those passages of Paul as being culturally driven, not handed down as Divine Law.

Arnold got the RCC position correct. The basic position is that if Jesus had wanted women leaders, he would have picked women as Apostles. My rejoinder to that is the same. Jesus was a Jew. Unless he had deliberately set out to overthrow all of Judaism, there is no way at that time and that place that he could have set women up in positions of authority. Therefore, claiming that it was his specific intent seems short-sighted. (JP II and I seem to disagree on this point.)

.

.

(This discussion regarding 1 Timothy, of course, does not even get into the whole brouhaha over whether Paul even actually wrote that particular letter.)

.

7

Several folks wrote words to the effect of

This may be true. But there’s a subtle implication here that Paul was just some guy on the side, and not really a spokesman for the “true christians”.

In fact, Paul was about as responsible for Christianity as Christ. (Given, with no Jesus, there would be no Christianity, but with no Paul there may have been). Though it’s believed that they never met, Paul was largely responsible for the definition and spreading of Christianity.

The book, “The 100: A ranking of the most influential persons in history” ranks him #6 (Jesus was #3) and says “His influence on the Christian theology proved to be the most permanent and far-reaching of all Christian writers and thinkers.” and “No other man played so large a role in the propagation of Christianity.” Very good book, by the way.

Any way, my point is that just because Paul said it does not imply it’s not part of the doctrine. Quite the opposite, actually.

8

billehunt is correct with respect to Paul’s role in shaping the early Church, and (for that matter) in shaping the Church ever after. The very fact that we’re having this discussion is in large part attributable to the theology of many Christian denominations, including the Southern Baptists, IMO, being based more on Paul than on the Gospels.

It’s worth considering the likelihood that Paul was telling the women to sit down and shut up because, as far as he was concerned, there was a need for the message: a number of women played strong roles in the early church, making their houses available as places of worship, and providing financial support where needed. In other words, he wouldn’t have said it if women hadn’t been influential at the time.

But because he (or his followers; note Tom’s aside re authorship) got in the last word, women were shut out of power once the church structure became formalized.

It’s hard for me to see verses 11-12 (re women’s authority, or rather lack thereof) being any less a product of that time and place, and any more relevant to ours, than vv. 9-10 (concerning jewelry and hair-braiding).

The part that you’d think nobody would want to base anything serious on, though, is vv. 12b-14:

Verse 13: WTF?! Is Paul saying that if Eve had been created first, then he and all us guys would shut up and let women make the decisions? Yeh, right. If that had been the order of the creation story, Paul would have simply taken his cue from meara, and defined the concluding position in the order of creation as the power position.

But whichever way Paul does it, that’s nothing compared to his deeper fallacy that one sex must submit to the other in the first place. It’s not only: why should the order in which men and women were supposedly created have anything to do with who’s boss, but: what in that order suggests that there should be a boss amongst the two sexes?

And verse 14, in addition to suffering from the same problem, can be read absolutely backwards from the way Paul reads it: woman fell into sin due to the temptation of the serpent, who is (in standard Christian theology) seen as Satan, the ultimate, all-time champion Tempter. Man fell into sin by listening to the words of woman, a somewhat lesser tempter by the standards of that theology.

They both fell, but whose failure to resist temptation showed less backbone? The man’s, of course - a few words from the woman, and he’s pussy-whipped into eating the apple. Gawd, what a wuss. No need for Satan to work on him directly; here’s a guy with no sales resistance whatsoever.

But of course the Southern Baptists aren’t going to look at this passage that critically. They take inerrancy for granted; Paul’s logic is therefore without flaw. (Don’t ask me how they wave away the braided-hair-and-jewelry stuff; inerrancy has an internal illogic of its own that is utterly inexplicable to the outside world.)

Who knows the minds of the SBC, if they have any? Who has been their counsellor? And is ‘Baptist theologian’ an oxymoron? (Hint: yes.)

9

I claim no expertise in biblican interpretation, but I find excluding female pastors to be a shame.

10

Men and elephants ought to both shut up–birds were here first.

Look it up–Genesis 1. Birds: Fifth day. Animals: Sixth day.

Hah!

11

Wonderful Quote … As for the issue of the Role of Females I notice up to this time there has been no Defense of the basic assumtion
Quote (RTFirefly) But whichever way Paul does it, that’s nothing compared to his deeper fallacy that one sex must submit to the other in the first place. It’s not only: why should the order in which men and women were supposedly created have anything to do with who’s boss, but: what in that order suggests that there should be a boss amongst the two sexes?

HMMM (side issue) There are gender differences … so is it a fallacy of tradition / culture / society that the female is to subjected to the male (God’s or Natural order)

12

In earlier times, the subjugation of women originated in, and was largely perpetuated by, the greater size and strength of men. So I suppose it depends on whether you consider ‘Might Makes Right’ a fallacy.

Certainly it must be considered so in the context of whether women have any useful spiritual insights to dispense to a church congregation.

13

Actually, as a Catholic, I have a question of my own: why should any atheist want Christian Churches to ordain women in the first place?

IF the atheists are correct, Christianity is a load of drivel to begin with, and priests/ministers are deluded fools (at best) or scam artists.

So, if Christianity is bunk, how would it be “progress” to let women in on this farce?

14

It is understood, in atheist circles, that theological arguments are prefixed with “hypothetically speaking…” :slight_smile:

15

Astorian asked,

Who ever said they do?? I’m not an athiest, and I don’t give much of a hoot what the “Christian Churches” do.

Adding to St Atilla’s answer, many non-Christians and non-theists enjoy debating and discussing theological issues. I’m not black, but I enjoyed my black history classes in school. And some athiests point to the apparant sexism of many religions as yet another example of the inanity of religion.

Athiests might think not allowing women to lead religious services is silly (or allowing blacks the priesthood, or allowing women to walk around unveiled, etc.), but since they mostly find the whole ball of wax silly, it doesn’t affect their lives.

16

.

Paul was about as “Christian” as John Rocker is altruistic.

Apparently some female transcriber ended up getting the last laugh on him though.

1Corinthians 14:35-36.

She apparently split verse 40 so she could add verse 36.

Good for her!

and good enough for the Bozo of Tarsus too!

Neo

17

Neo: I’m not sure about the “female transciber” idea, but it IS an interesting verse. Nice cite, dude! :cool:

18

How much of a homosexual was Paul? Did he maintain celibacy after conversion, or was he constantly having to flagellate himself for “men-lovin’” episodes?

:::fishin’s fine since I got that new trollin’ motor!:::

:stuck_out_tongue:

19

It never ceases to amaze me that so many liberal CHristians (and even non-Christians) are eager to embrace Jesus, and portray him as a warm, wonderful, non-judgmental guy who loved everybody… while they scorn Paul as a hypocritical, self-righteous, exclusionary meanie (and probably a closet homo as well).

Guys, guess what? You’re not only wrong, you’ve got it ass backwards! Don’t believe me? COnsider this:

  1. Do you obey the kosher laws? You don’t? WHy not? JESUS did, and he NEVER gave the slightest indication that his followers were free to disregard them. It was mean old PAUL who said that CHristians didn’t have to obey the kosher laws!

  2. Do you believe in mandatory cicrcumcision? You DON’T? Why not? Mosaic law required it, and Jesus NEVER suggested it should be done away with. Indeed, the Apostles (who knew Jesus personally) continued to require circumcision. It was mean old PAUL, who never met Jesus, who said circumcision was unnecessary!

  3. Are you Jewish by blood? If not, Jesus himself wasn’t interested in you. Jesus taught only descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and NEVER tried to share his message with us Goys. It was mean old PAUL who spread the Gospel to us non-Jews.

Get the idea? Jesus NEVER suggested that Mosaic law (which included the stoning of homsexuals and adulterers) was no longer valid. It was PAUL who did that.

So, if you fancy yourself a Christian, but disdain Paul, there’s only one thing to do: be like JEsus, and start following Mosaic law to the letter! IF, on the other hand, you like eating bacon cheeseburgers, or if you LIKE your foreskin, or if you LIKE being able to disregard inconvenient features of the Pentateuch… guess what? You NEED Paul! Without him, you have no leg to stand on.

20

This, of course, would appear to be entirely backwards. It is the opinion of a number of people that the Christian antipathy to homosexuality was a direct result of Paul, who was willing to set aside the dietary laws and circumcision for Gentiles, being unwilling to set aside the Jewish view of homosexuality as an “abomination.”

If you want to claim that Paul’s “anti-women” material sprang from some sort of homosexual orientation that he was supposed to have had, I will note that you are simply buying into another false stereotype regarding male homosexuality. Gays are not “anti-women” (except in the minds of certain homophobes); they simply do not find women sexually attractive.