#st. paul the apostle

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

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. 

[lionofchaeronea]

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

[hrsquotes]

In 1 Timothy 1:19, the Apostle Paul urges Timothy this: "Cling to your faith in Christ, and keep your conscience clear. For some people have deliberately violated their consciences; as a result, their faith has been shipwrecked."

You may also recognize Luke 17:33, where Jesus give us a warning about holding on too tightly to our own lives. Here it is in the NLT: "If you cling to your life, you will lose it, and if you let your life go, you will save it."

If we cling to ourselves, to the ways of this world, we inevitably will lose it. We cannot truly cling to Jesus unless we let go of any unholy, unrighteous things we were holding tightly to. By clinging to Him, we will be lead into a glorious future full of love, joy, peace, & health, & many, many other blessings. It doesn't matter how messed up, cracked, or even broken your past has been. Jesus wants to lead you to a glorious, victorious life. Clinging to Him is a choice we must make daily. His hand is always stretched out offering for us to cling.

[ngtheunholybunnyng]

Goblin orc dude

[many-sparrows]

Martin Luther and Paul the Apostle would have either gotten along like a house fire or they wouldn't have been able to stand in the same room. It's about the self loathing.

[heresylog]

Hi, not a bible person myself but I was watching a video and I was curious about something in it and figured I would ask you. It’s a video where a man is illegally arrested for having a sign with what seems to be a pretty controversial message outside of a church as the congregation is all showing up.

I’ve only read the bible once when I was young and my bible study has been limited to a week of barely paying attention at summer camp so I have what I would generously call almost zero context for what this guy was trying to say.

The sign said “The apostle Paul taught the opposite of what Jesus taught.” I know who Paul was but don’t really remember what his teachings were and how they differed so much, and why everyone got so worked up (beyond it seeming like kind of a duck move and the general rivalry between different views of Christianity)

Hi there,

I am not qualified to go into depth, but basically this person is saying that Paul undid all the work of Jesus.

This is problematic in two ways

It implies Jesus made a mistake. Jesus gave Paul the keys to the kingdom and by saying Paul (who was hand picked by Jesus) was wrong in how he lead the early Church…you can see why people get upset.

It implies that Jesus lied. (Matthew 5:15) Jesus said he would not undo Jewish laws but to “fulfill them.” And Paul said that Gentiles would not be required to adhere to Jewish rules. This is the quote many people use when refuting that Jesus would have loved everyone despite xyz.

Obviously, this man should not have been arrested.

tl;dr

Jesus picked Paul to be the leader of Christianity. Some people think Paul did a bad job leading. Some people think that belief in Paul doing a bad job is heresy.

[gayleviticus]

i finished reading damascus by christos tsiolkias (his novel about the apostle paul and early christianity) and was very pleasantly surprised by how it manages to be such a nuanced and complex look at such a controversial figure without descending into the saccharine preachiness of Christian fiction (and in fact, being written by someone who is not a Christian and also filled with enough shits, fucks, cunts, and reference to arse-fucking to instantly kill the average Christian fiction writer)

he manages to balance contrasts very effectively; a cruel, profane world of crucifixion and rape with a genuinely subversive religion of love and solidarity; a Paul flowing with genuine kindness and faith but also struggles with streaks of pride and jealousy.

but what impresses me most of all is the way the novel holds both Paul's apocalyptic gospel of resurrection in a world to come and its radical rejection of the injustice of this world with Thomas' naturalistic gospel that the kingdom has come and is among us already in Jesus' teaching. especially the way Tsiolkias acknowledges that even as Paul's gospel sits awkwardly with our modern scepticism it has heirs in any revolutionary tradition that wishes to change the world; it is this gospel that stands in condemnation of the systems of the world as they stand, and that spread the teachings of Jesus to the entire world (notably Damascus takes the interpretation that none of the other apostles bar Paul would fellowship with Gentiles). it would have been very easy to tap into the zeitgeist of scepticism and write a novel where Paul is a charlatan or crazy fundamentalist, and the gospel of Thomas marginalised and ignored as heretical and Gnostic is rather the true faith buried by orthodoxy. Paul is a very acceptable scapegoat to bash; if we can blame all the uncomfortable bits of the Bible on him (or the bloodthirsty and primitive Old Testament) we can maintain an unsullied image of pure Christianity. [and i don't mean to say this is entirely unjustified, especially given the way evangelicalism in particular loves to deploy isolated verses rather than entire texts! When your primary mode of engagement with him is not actually reading his epistles as works of literature, but throwing Romans 1.27 at gay people to convince them to stop being gay 100 times, that is naturally going to deeply warp your perspective of how much of his corpus is actually problematic (which, imo, when we account for 1) cultural norms re homosexuality and pederasty 2) the fact about 3-6 'Pauline' epistles were probably not written by him and 3) some verses possibly being interpolations, is really not that much).] But such a novel purporting to expose Paul as a fundamentalist charlatan would be just as didactic and simplistic as pious Christian fiction where Paul can do no wrong and harbour no doubts and is a direct mouthpiece for 21st-century evangelical doctrine. And so I very much appreciate the thought and empathy Tsolkias puts into this novel to understand Paul, rather than taking a few soundbites as an excuse to dismiss the man entirely. His Paul is flawed - a man who falls victim to jealousy, who sometimes makes his heart stone to avoid doubt - but also a man who believes in friendship and love across barriers of male and female, slave and free, Jew and Greek, one who hopes that this world mired in empire and oppression and crucifixion need not be the only way. and also a man who has a homoerotic relationship with Timothy that also has v queer-coded parallels in him bringing home an uncircumcised Gentile to the apostles in Jerusalem who he fears will reject this pagan. which is cool imo

[doeofdevotion]

Yes yes Problems with Paul, but remember when he wrote this in his letter to the Corinthians

But some of you, thinking that I am not coming to you, have become arrogant. But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power. For the kingdom of God depends not on talk but on power. What would you prefer? Am I to come to you with a stick or with love in a spirit of gentleness?

1 Corinthians 4:18-21

‭Literally:

🎶 I heard that you were talking shit and you didn’t think that I would hear it 🍌

Do you bite or are you all bark?? The “bitch” here is silent but we see it.

What would you prefer? Violence? Are you going to choose violence?!

Paul was mad as hell writing this letter omfg

[christliche-kunstwerke]

St. Jakobus der Apostel, ca. 1612-13 von Peter Paul Rubens (Öl auf Holz)

[fuckyeahvanhalen86-95]

December 8, 1980: Eddie proposes to Valerie Bertinelli with an $8,000 diamond ring.

"I think he [Dave] was jealous that Ed had fallen in love and was happy. I feel Dave tended to keep Ed in a miserable place and liked him there because he could control him that way. But when Ed became happy and more independent, Dave couldn't control him anymore. Dave likes control."

- Valerie Bertinelli

"I think it pissed Dave off, because all of a sudden I got a whole other side of the limelight he wanted. The tabloids and People magazine kind of shit."

- Eddie Van Halen

April 11, 1981: Eddie Van Halen marries Valerie Bertinelli at St. Paul the Apostle Church in Westwood, California.

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

*someone hates paul*

If you need me I'll be crying-

[hrsquotes]

In Philippians 1:21-24, the Apostle Paul says in the New Living Translation: 21 For to me, living means living for Christ, and dying is even better. 22 But if I live, I can do more fruitful work for Christ. So I really don’t know which is better. 23 I’m torn between two desires: I long to go and be with Christ, which would be far better for me. 24 But for your sakes, it is better that I continue to live.

The Message Bible says also says it quite well: 21 Alive, I’m Christ’s messenger; dead, I’m his prize. Life versus even more life! I can’t lose. 22 As long as I’m alive in this body, there is good work for me to do. If I had to choose right now, I hardly know which I’d choose. Hard choice! 23 The desire to break camp here and be with Christ is powerful. Some days I can think of nothing better. 24 But most days, because of what you are going through, I am sure that it’s better for me to stick it out here.

When the Apostle Paul wrote the book of Philippians, as well as three other books (Ephesians, Colossians, & Philemon), he was serving his first imprisonment, which Acts 28 talks about. When he was writing the above passage, he knew very well that he could die a prisoner. Yet, he had faith that he would one day be free. So, he got to reflecting. If he were to die while in prison, he would get to experience the glories of Heaven, leaving the mess of this world behind. He also saw the vitality of staying alive because of the anointing God placed on his life - bringing the Gospel to the gentile (non-Jewish) world, helping them to become true disciples of Christ, thus having more souls getting to hear "well done, my good & faithful servant." It was a win-win scenario. As appealing as dying a prisoner was for Paul, he saw the vitality of remaining alive far more significant, not only for him, but for the entire world.

That is how it should be for us as Christians. We should be so firm, so on fire in our relationship with Jesus, letting that spill onto how we treat others, that we become 100% positive where we will spend our afterlife. Because of this, death is not to be feared, regardless of how young or old we die. If we are to remain alive, we get to live out more of The Great Commission in whatever field God has placed us in, helping bring more souls to Heaven. Again, it's a win-win scenario.

[ngtheunholybunnyng]

God the father from Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam"

[portraitsofsaints]

The Conversion of Paul

Saint Paul the Apostle  5 -  67 Feast Days: January 25 

June 29 (Feasts of Saints Peter and Paul)

Patronage: Missions; Theologians; Gentile Christians

St. Paul has said of Heaven “Eye has not seen nor ear heard…what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9). {website}

[etakeh]

I have friends in Vegas this weekend.

My prayer for them is that they not miss any of their scheduled activities, they eat good food, and they don't get testy with each other because they're tired and overstimulated.

[pink-fiat003]

Can’t stop thinking about saints Priscilla and Aquila traveling with St. Paul, and him mentioning them with pure love in his writings 😭 I love the idea of St. Paul working on his writings while the couple work on their tents in the background