Wives, Mothers, Daughters, Lovers: Humans – I Fail to Understand the Hatred


1 Corinthians 14:34-35

{14:34} Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
{14:35} And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Malevolent deity, or self-loathing author?


I am a compassionate being. I value diversity.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Wives, Mothers, Daughters, Lovers: Humans – I Fail to Understand the Hatred

  1. And the thing is, we know there were female deaconesses in the early Church because the Romans documented torturing two of them (slave women both) to determine the extent of their superstition.

  2. Hi, interesting blog. You seem to consistently claim that you “fail to understand.” So I thought maybe I could help you understand. However, I don’t claim to be able to make Scripture palatable to you, if you wish to see God’s word as hate, that is your choice. But there is the Christian view of Scripture, which doesn’t see it as hate, and I’ll share that with you. This is what my commentary says about those two verses:

    Ver. 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches, &c.] This is a restriction of, and an exception to one of the above rules, that all might prophesy; in which he would be understood of men only, and not of women; and is directed against a practice which seems to have prevailed in this church at Corinth, allowing women to preach and teach in it; and this being a disorderly practice, and what was not used in other churches, the apostle forbids and condemns, and not without reason:

    for it is not permitted unto them to speak; that is, in public assemblies, in the church of God, they might not speak with tongues, nor prophesy, or preach, or teach the word. All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority. It was not allowed by God that they should speak in any authoritative manner in the church; nor was it suffered in the churches of Christ; nor was it admitted of in the Jewish synagogue; there, we are told {b}, the men came to teach, and the women ewmvl, “to hear”: and one of their canons runs thus {c};

    “a woman may not read (that is, in the law), rwbub, “in the congregation,” or church, because of the honour of the congregation;”

    for they thought it a dishonourable thing to a public assembly for a woman to read, though they even allowed a child to do it that was capable of it.

    But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. In #Ge 3:16, “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”. By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases.

    {b} T. Hieros Chagiga, fol. 75. 4. & T. Bab. Chagiga, fol. 3. 1.
    {c} Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 12. sect. 17. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 23. 1.

    Ver. 35. And if they will learn anything, &c.] If they are desirous of learning anything in relation to doctrine, duty, or discipline, and of improving their knowledge of divine things, which is very commendable in them; if any difficulty arises in their minds whilst hearing the word, which they want to have removed, or any question to ask for information sake,

    let them ask their husbands at home; privately, when retired from the public assembly; for though men might ask one another concerning this, and the other point, in the church, as was usual in the synagogue worship, to which this church at Corinth in many things conformed; yet women were not allowed this freedom, and even in things which belonged to women to do; as for instance, making the cake of the first of their dough, which was to be an heave offering to the Lord, the men were to teach the women at home how, and when to separate it from the rest {d}. So the apostle directs women, when they wanted to be informed about any point, to apply to their husbands at their own houses, if they were such as were capable of instructing them; if not, they might apply to other men that were Christian men, and men of knowledge, especially to the prophets, pastors, and teachers of the church, at their habitations:

    for it is a shame for women to speak in the church; it is a shame to themselves, as being contrary to the natural modesty and bashfulness of the sex, and a shame to the church, to the non-members of it, and especially to the elders, and more experienced part of it, to be taught and directed by a woman; it is a disgrace to herself and sex, as betraying uncommon pride and vanity, and an unnatural boldness and confidence; and a disgrace to the church to be under such a ministry and conduct.

    {d} Bartenora in Misn. Challa, c. 3. sect. 1.

    • I respect your concern. Allow me to confirm that indeed, there is much I do not understand. I therefore welcome the greater insight of one more intimate with the historic text at hand.

      Unfortunately, in the nearly 900 words of your comment I discern no acceptance of women as equals.

      I fail to understand.

  3. The commentary is pointing out that there are gender roles. Men and women do not have the same roles, and the dissimilarity of roles could be regarded in some sense as an inequality, but not in a negative sense. However, if you’re going to take the stance that men and women must be exactly equal in all ways, then I suppose the Bible’s teaching on this issue is unpalatable to you.

    Perhaps you would favor a law requiring women to take steroids and growth hormone to make them as tall and strong as men? Perhaps we must also sterilize them so they don’t have to go through the unequal burden of pregnancy, and cutting off their breasts might be a good idea to. If you do not support these ideas for the equality of women, I fail to understand.

    • I regret my thoughts so angered you as to reduce your response to become invective filled and frothing with sarcasm. I suspect that is not how you would choose to conduct a cordial intellectual engagement with an infidel, or any other person.

      That said, I suggest in the future you give more careful consideration to your choice of metaphor when discussing biblical matters. Your thinking exposes your inner beast. Please, allow me to demonstrate.

      Your offer to sterilize women, “Perhaps we must also sterilize them”, would be frowned upon by sensible and compassionate people. Also, there’s already too much genital mutilation in the bible (not suggesting that any at all is acceptable).

      Wasn’t “the unequal burden of pregnancy”, as you put it, imposed upon women in Genesis? So that one is taken by, well, you know who. You may want to leave it alone.

      I find your suggestion that “cutting off their breasts might be a good idea” completely abhorrent. Did that idea derive from the bible? I certainly hope not.

      Thank you for helping me understand.

  4. Well, I’ll give you this, your last comment made me laugh…a lot. 🙂 Yet you were unable to refute my point that men and women are different, and thus in a sense, not equal. So we have different roles.

    What else shall I say? I hope my invective, frothing sarcasm hasn’t caused a failure in your understanding.

    • Good. As long as were smiling at each other there is hope for us all.

      My non-response to your point was in no way related to ability. It was simply a matter of choice. I no more wish to argue against a vision of a gender cast society than I do the imorality of collecting the foreskin of slain enemies. The latter is an act so despicable it’s proposition is indefensible in civilized society.

      And again, thank you for furthering my understanding.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s