#Apostles Paul | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

artist-issues · 6 months ago

Note

I'm curious, what do you think of 1st Corinthians 14:34-35?

What we think of it doesn’t matter; what I think of it matters even less; what it says is what matters. It’s the Word of God.

“The women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. But if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.”

Everyone’s got a problem with that because it sounds like the Bible is saying women can’t ever talk in church at all. That’s not what it’s saying, though. You know why? Because this is two verses plucked straight out of a book that has 437 verses in it. That’s like if I read two sentences out of the middle of one of your emails to a close family member and took issue with whatever those two sentences said. Even though the context determines the meaning, so I have no right to get offended when I don’t understand the context. So what’s the context of 1 Corinthians by the time you get to 14:34-35?

The Apostle Paul is writing to a church in the Gentile city of Corinth in AD 53 or 54. That church was a blend of Jewish Christians and Greek Christians. Two completely different cultures were figuring out what the “assembly of the saints,” or “the first church services” were supposed to look like. And to make matters more complicated, they lived in one of the most morally bankrupt cities of that age. Literally, the Corinthian people had a Greek word coined to describe their immorality. So the people who lived there were generally all messed up, in terms of not knowing what was right and what was wrong. That extended to their church services.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians is “what is a church that glorifies the Lord supposed to look like?” The context of the specific chapter, 14, is “what should church assembly that glorifies the Lord look like? What should it not look like?”

How do I know? Read the verses that come before it. At the beginning of the chapter, Paul explains that spiritual gifts are for edifying other people. In fact, everything done in a church service, where the saints are gathered, is not for an individual. It’s for the edification of the whole group. So what might be okay to do in your own home or in private between you and God is not okay, because it’s not mindful, considerate, or edifying to other Christians when you’re in a church service.

Specifically, the Corinthians are all claiming to “prophesy” (get direct revelation from God) and “speak in tongues” (speak in known, but various and foreign, languages) all at once during the service. Everybody’s shouting over each other. Some people are shouting over each other “THUS SAYS THE LORD,” which is a huge deal. Because obviously if you’re going to claim that God has told you something, everyone should shut up, listen, and determine whether or not you’re telling the truth, because what could be a bigger deal than God speaking? But that’s not how the church in Corinth was treating it. Their services were helping nobody, least of all themselves, because it was loud chaotic pandemonium and nobody I was being edified. Everybody was shouting and judging. Including women. By verse 26, Paul is going:

“What is the outcome then, brothers? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has a translation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must translate; but if there is no translator, he must keep silent in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God. And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted. And the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”

And then he adds,

“If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone remains ignorant about this, he is ignored by God.

“Therefore, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.”

Do you get it? The point is, “what does this specific situation, which is a church service, look like if we’re trying to do things in a God-honoring, orderly manner? Here’s what it does not look like: women can’t just stand up in church and take up the role of judge over men who are shouting that they are speaking from God, and call certain men impostors and certain men prophets.”

The point is not “all women should never ever speak in all church services because that’s disgraceful, they only get to talk to their husbands and get told what to do.”

If it were, then explain to me why, three chapters earlier, when he’s talking about head-coverings, Paul writes that women can prophesy in public?

“But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, shames her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.”

(if you want to talk about why the heck a woman has to have her head covered when she prophesies, blah blah blah, let’s talk about that too, but the answer’s going to be the same: context determines meaning, meaning is correct interpretation, etc.)

Additionally, why would Paul be commending the women in the church who have taught their sons and grandsons? How can they teach if they’re never allowed to talk in church, or if their only role in all contexts is “shut up and learn?”

Because that’s not their only biblical role. And that’s not what Paul was saying. Paul was saying, “in this specific context, here’s how a woman (among all the other people groups I’m also addressing) should conduct herself when the goal is to edify the believers in a church service, and not let anything get in the way of that goal.”

Now.

Guess what?

If the Bible did say, “all women shut up and listen all the time, let the men do the talking,” would you listen to it?

You, reading this. Would you have a problem with it? If that’s what God Sid to do, would you sit in judgement over God and say, “no, infinite Creator of all matter and life, You’re mistaken about how You should be worshipped and what these little creatures You made are for, let me correct and educate You with the judgement coming out of the three-pound lump of gray matter, which You designed and graciously allowed me to have in the first place, sitting inside my skull. Let me, the creature, tell You, the Creator, where you’re wrong and what ‘Being God’ should be like.”

I hope not. But I was super convicted reading this chapter for the first time and finding myself a) misunderstanding it and then b) having the appalling gall and arrogance to be outraged by it.

Who in the world am I? Who am I to be outraged, if God did say, “be quiet and spend your life listening to men?” If that were what He was saying, my response should be, “Yes, Lord.”

Why are we so concerned about being allowed to speak? What do we have to say that’s so great, that’s so necessary, that’s so devastating to have “removed” from us, anyway? Why do we care so much about being heard? Is it because we have something to say that could really help men, in the church services? Oh, really? And if we women don’t say it, God won’t edify the men? He’ll be handicapped because we were muzzled?

What’s so offensive about being told to stop talking and ask questions to learn, anyway? Why is that so infuriating, to us? We’re fools. The whole point of the Gospel is, “He (Jesus) must increase; I must decrease.” The best place in the world to be is at the feet of Jesus, learning. Humble. Not producing anything of ourselves, but absorbing everything He has to teach us. Who cares if it’s our husbands He plans to do that through? Who cares if we can’t teach men in church? What, we think God can’t handle that? We think He can’t teach them His own way, that His plan was flawed, that they’re “missing out” because God dropped the ball by telling us not to stand up in service and disrupt everything with this great ‘word’ we have, that nobody else has?

Ugh. God forgive me for ever even approaching a mindset that thinks I have something to say, and if I don’t say it, He won’t be able to accomplish His will. God forgive me for ever thinking my Western modern culture knows better than His divine plan. He designed human beings and men and women and what would best serve us before “culture” or “social frameworks” were ever even conceived of.

We all need to be a lot more humble. Me first.

I would encourage you to test what I said. If you read this, you should spend an equal amount of time studying the Bible for yourself and seeing if I was right, and if that’s really what God said and meant, based on the context, which determines meaning, because there is such a thing as “correct and incorrect interpretation” when the God of the universe meant something by what He said. And I could’ve gotten it wrong. And you don’t want to get it wrong.

#asked #answered #1 Corinthians #1 Corinthians 14 #women in the church #egalitarian #🙄#Christianity #Jesus #apostle Paul #church culture #women #men #me #Yahweh

57 notes · View notes

idylls-of-the-divine-romance · 13 days ago

Note

what do you think of the argument that 1 Corinthians 14:34 wasn’t written by Paul, but inserted later? supporters of the idea argue that it doesn’t fit at all with the rest of 1 Cor 14, which is all about prophesy etc, with just this one verse flung in, then carrying on about prophesy. also, that it doesn’t fit with Paul’s writings on women covering their heads in church (1 Cor 11:5), where he expects them to pray and prophesy (as long as their heads are covered). this isn’t a loaded question at all, i’m interested in your interpretation with your love of Paul and much more knowledge of him than i have!

Grace!!! I love your questions. And I do love Paul lol. So, despite being aware of this argument I’ve never actually looked into it before today so we’re getting some off the cuff interpretation from me lolll

So the structure of 1 Corinthians is

1-4: Unity in the Diversity

5-7: Sexual Ethic in the Kingdom

8-10: Food and Idols

11-14: Unity in Worship

15-16: The Resurrection

So the weird issue in chapter 14 comes right after (1) Paul’s famous essay on love as the meaning of the universe which should then motivate you to focus on loving others rather than elevating yourself, and (2) Paul shaming the Corinthians for using the assembly as a talent show and not a common union based on love.

Paul says (I don’t have a great translation on hand so bear with me lol)

All people must speak one at a time

Speaking in tongues must have an interpreter (and not just Dionysian madness).

Prophets need to comport themselves and not monopolize the assembly and go one by one.

Women be silent and, if you’re confused, ask your husbands questions at home. It is shameful for a woman to speak. (Also it is the word “silent” and not “quiet”)

You should listen to me, Paul, because I gives the commandments of the Lord

So the obvious issue in the verse (aside from the rather misogynistic vibes) is that it is in direct contradiction with the rest of scripture which places great emphasis on the (ideal) inherent equality of women (again. Ideally) and also Paul’s own writing in this very letter where he gives details on how women in the Assembly of God are to pray, speak in tongues (which Paul describes in the letter as the language of spiritual beings), and prophesy (that is, preach a direct word from God). It is also inconsistent with Paul's dealings with his co-workers in that women such as Prisca, Phoebe and Junia could not have functioned as Church leaders and apostles if they were not allowed to speak in public.

So as such there are (per usual) a myriad of differing interpretations that fall under these camps. A reading of

Subservience

Culture

Interpolation

Disagreement

I will not be nice nor gentle: if you hold the first view you are a misogynist with a poor exegesis of scripture. The fact that some Christian traditions have taken to literally silencing women in the church and refusing that they speak. Quite frankly I do not care if Paul WAS saying that no woman should ever speak in church ever — if he was, his words should be rejected as the ravings of a man who had no connection to Jesus of Nazareth, the Anointed One. Why? Not just because I personally find it disgusting (which. Clearly I do. I cannot be subtle I hate misogyny) but because it is inconsistent with the biblical narrative as a whole from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. If we claim that the Holy Scriptures are a unified story that leads to Jesus then we have no choice but to interpret scripture in a way that is consistent as a whole. And this one does not cut it. Also it’s misogynist. Get rekt by the image of God poem.

Next is the idea that this is a culturally contextual commandment. As such they would argue this doesn’t apply to all believers in all churches — either in 2025 or back in 56 when Paul write this letter. Some married women who sat together were being rude — talking and arguing during the sermon instead of listening to the singing, praying, and prophesying. They need to be quiet and ask their husbands whatever questions they have at home.

Slight problem imo: the idea that married women sat separately than the unmarried. I haven’t seen or found anything that would lead me to believe that there was a separation of the married and the unmarried, or any sex based separation. In fact, men and women of varying careers and ethnicities and socioeconomic statuses sitting together at one table to take the bread and the cup was a big deal and very controversial to many. That said, this is Corinth, the church infamous for being a problem basically all day and all the time. Also there was an almost schism that went down regarding sex and marriage vs consecrated virginity. Amongst other things (again Corinth had lots of problems). So it is possible that there was a division in seating between married and unmarried men and women.

Edit: interjecting here after having read N.T. Wright’s paper on the biblical basis for women’s service in the church. I’ll just quote the whole thing, “I have always been attracted, ever since I heard it, to the explanation offered once more by Ken Bailey. In the Middle East, he says, it was taken for granted that men and women would sit apart in church, as still happens today in some circles. Equally important, the service would be held (in Lebanon, say, or Syria, or Egypt), in formal or classical Arabic, which the men would all know but which many of the women would not, since the women would only speak a local dialect or patois. Again, we may disapprove of such an arrangement, but one of the things you learn in real pastoral work as opposed to ivory-tower academic theorizing is that you simply can’t take a community all the way from where it currently is to where you would ideally like it to be in a single flying leap. Anyway, the result would be that during the sermon in particular, the women, not understanding what was going on, would begin to get bored and talk among themselves. As Bailey describes the scene in such a church, the level of talking from the women’s side would steadily rise in volume, until the minister would have to say loudly, ‘Will the women please be quiet!’, whereupon the talking would die down, but only for a few minutes. Then, at some point, the minister would again have to ask the women to be quiet; and he would often add that if they wanted to know what was being said, they should ask their husbands to explain it to them when they got home.” With this new context I now find this to be a much stronger argument. And if it weren’t for the next problem I’d embrace it with open arms. But, alas, earwax

Bigger problem: the Greek. Unlike in 1 Timothy where it says “Let women learn in quietness” this says very strongly in Greek that the women must be “silent”, as if required so by law, and that is “disgraceful/shameful” (another very strong word in Greek ) if they do not. This is an honor-shame culture so for something to be shameful is really, really bad. The Greek seems much too strong and intense for the cultural argument to be the case.

Next is the interpolation interpretation: this is actually very popular among scholars. The reasons being

the passage interrupts the flow of Paul's argument

it follows language from the First Epistle to Timothy, which was probably not written by Paul

it contradicts Paul's neutral or positive mention of women prophesying, praying, and taking other speaking and leadership roles in the church

the passage is alternatively found at different locations in some manuscripts, which may indicate it was originally inserted as a marginal note and then unstably inserted into the text itself

some manuscripts give evidence of a prior record of its absence from the text.

And honestly? I find those to be really convincing arguments! I actually was unaware of all of this before today.

Interestingly Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, when arguing for this position says, “1 Corinthians 14:34–35 are not a Corinthian slogan, as some have argued…, but a post-Pauline interpolation. ... Not only is the appeal to the law (possibly Genesis 3:16) un-Pauline, but the verses contradict 1 Corinthians 11:5. The injunctions reflect the misogyny of 1 Timothy 2:11–14 and probably stem from the same circle. Some mss. place these verses after 40.” Ignoring the jab at 1 Timothy (on which i find the Cult of Diana theory to be most convincing), I am intrigued at his words about a possible appeal to the Torah.

The verse is: “Women should be silent in the assemblies. For they are not allowed to speak but are to subject themselves, just as the Torah also says.”

Genesis 3:16 says: “Your desire shall be toward your husband, and he shall tyrant over you.” Which if you are a longtime follower of this blog (so like one of you lolll) you might know I take this to mean “You will have a tendency to dominate your husband, and he will have a tendency to act as a tyrant over you.” For why desire means dominate read the next chapter.

(Sidenote: both the woman being subjugated and the man eating the herb of the field are both forms of humanity becoming beasts. Meditate on Genesis 1 and 3.)

Where was I? Right, the interloper theory. Murphy-O'Connor says that the hyperlink is not Pauline but I’m not sure about that. An appeal to Genesis 1-3 to make a theological argument is very Pauline to me. Actually it’s just very biblical. All biblical theology throughout the prophets comes out of Genesis 1-3. It’s the same in the apostles. When Paul wants to talk about gender equality he turns to Genesis 1! Anyway. I don’t believe Paul wrote that line or made that allusion but I do think it’s inaccurate to say that the hyperlink is un-Pauline.

Finally there is the disagreement interpretation, which I think is the most recent theory. Basically, in the same way earlier in the letter Paul will quote a letter from the Corinthians — “It is good for a man to not touch a woman” and “We know that we all have knowledge” — and then disagree with it — “Nevertheless because of sexual immorality” and “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” — he is doing the same thing here. Quoting a letter from the Corinthians and then following up with a disagreement.

And with the way that our modern bibles have the text, this too is a compelling argument. The injunction against women speaking is immediately followed with with a negative statement: “[ē] did the word of God originate with you?” And then the controversy has to do with that ē (‘eh’). It can mean “or/than/either” or it can mean “hey/now” but either way it’s about contesting and contrast.

Now here is where we begin to get into nerdy stuff about language which uh is not my wheelhouse. I love biblical studies and if I ever went into academic study of theology, that is where I would focus. But the second you want me to open a Hebrew/Greek dictionary I’m running away. Just know, there are a lot of smart people who believe it is a quotation that begins with “As in all the assemblies of the saints” and ends with “shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly”, and then is contested by Paul “What! Did the word of God originate with y’all, or are y’all the only ones it has reached?"

The thing that bothers me about this interpretation: the manuscript variations. However, David Odell-Scott argues that those western manuscripts that moved 34-35 to a different position (after verse 40) are the work of a patriarchal redactor seeking to "shelter" and protect the Corinthian slogan from Paul's emphatic critique in verse 36. By associating these verses with the "decency and order" of verse 40, the redactor undermined the egalitarian interpretation of the canonical version, and incorrectly presented the Corinthian voice as the voice of Paul. (Sidenote: Odell-Scott seems to also dislike 1 Timothy. Interesting)

In summary because Kyrie Eleison that was a lot! So ranked —

Subordination: misogynist, anti biblical, anti Christian, anti Pauline. Should be rejected and burned with Gehenna fire

Cultural: a pretty good interpretation of it wasn’t for the intense harshness of the Greek

Interpolation and Disagreement: both are tied for me. Both have really good points that take both the textual and cultural history into view. Also both work structurally imo. Whether you have the injunction or not, the essay still flows perfectly.

I: Don’t be a showboat who creates disorder -> What!? Did the word of God come to y’all alone!?!

D: Don’t be a showboat who creates disorder -> “Something something misogynist trad” -> What!? Did the word of God come to y’all alone!?!

So… yeah. Love God. Love your neighbor. May whoever the misogynist was who wrote that have his bones ground to dust. And may the favor of our God and Lord Jesus be with you, and may the God of Peace crush the adversary underneath your feet.

30 notes · View notes

christliche-kunstwerke · 11 months ago

Photo

Mitteltafel Auferstehung Christi, 1611-1612 von Peter Paul Rubens

102 notes · View notes

lionofchaeronea · 10 months ago

Text

St. Paul Shipwrecked on Malta, Laurent de La Hyre, 1630

#art #art history #Laurent de La Hyre #religious art #Biblical art #Christian art #Christianity #Book of Acts #St. Paul #Apostle Paul #Baroque #Baroque art #French Baroque #Neoclassicism #French art #17th century art #oil on canvas #Birmingham Museum of Art

65 notes · View notes

doctorbunny · 6 months ago

Text

Amane's birthday flower tweet

(tweet links here)

Happy Birthday to everyone born today. Today is also Amane Momose from #MILGRAM's birthday. Her birth flower is Passiflora caerulea (tokeisou/Blue Passion Flower). The name "Passion flower" [tl note: passion as in "the passion/suffering of Christ, not enthusiasm] was used by Christian missionaries, it comes from the stamen's resemblence to the Crucifixion of Christ, with the 10 petals representing 10 Apostles. The passion flower's hanakotoba are "Faith", "Sacred Love" as well as "Religious fervour". Just so you know, this is simply an annecdote about the flower, it's not directly related to Amane's origins. Hanatokoba is purely allegorical. Simply put, just because the blue passion flower has this kind of backstory and hanakotoba, it doesn't mean Amane's religion is the same. Just added this supplement in case this is the first time you've had a run in with the Hanakotoba Guy and found it hard to understand. [Note: 花言葉おじさん Hanakotoba ojisan aka Hanakotoba Guy/Old Man Hanakotoba/Mr Hanakotoba is Yamanaka's nickname for himself when he does these things, he also used the term in Mikoto's birthday tweet]

本日お誕生日の方おめでとうございます。 #ミルグラムでは桃瀬遍の誕生日でもあります。誕生花はトケイソウ。十字架にかけられたキリストに似た雄しべと10人の使徒に見える花弁から別名「受難の花」と呼ばれ、キリスト教の布教に利用されました。花言葉は『信仰』『聖なる愛』そして『宗教的熱情』。ちなみにこの花に関してのエピソードなだけで、本人の出自とは直接関係ありません。花言葉はあくまで寓意です。噛み砕いてわかりやすく言うと、トケイソウってお花にそういうエピソードと花言葉があるってだけでアマネの信教がそうだって話じゃないよってことね。花言葉おじさんと邂逅するのが初めてだとわかりづらいだろうなと思って補足。

#amane momose #milgram #ミルグラム #milgram translation #yamanaka's twitter #Side note: Jesus had 12 apostles #11 if we don't count Judas on account of him being a traitor/dead #but the flower only has 10 petals so I wonder which apostle got left off #I bet it was Paul #no one likes that guy #I think some aspect's of Amane's religion were inspired by Jehova's witnesses (the blood transfusion thing) and deemphasis of birthdays #but newer cults often draw from many different kinds of religion so it makes sense its probably not 1:1 with Christianity or any other grou #fun fact: apparently the missionaries that named the passion flower were Spanish #which makes sense since Spain is right next to Portugal #And Portuguese missionaries were some of the first Europeans to trade with Japan #enough trivia for one post ww

44 notes · View notes