by Pleasuredome 32 Replies latest watchtower bible
aChristian,
Well ask and I shall receive, I say. That is exactly what I was looking for. I was riveted as I read your piece on Paul's attitudes toward women. I had never read anywhere in the couple books I've read on Paul such an idea as that he was quoting false teachings, and not promoting them.
Tomorrow or Saturday, I'm gonna take a closer look and look up the passages you cited as I read thru.
Thanks again and nice work.
- Cliff
Thanks to everyone for their contributions to this discussion. I would like to make it clear that I don't accept the Bible's teaching that women may not be the leader of a church. Because their sensitivity to the feelings of others is inherently greater than men's, I think women generally make better ministers than men. Nevertheless, I still believe that the preponderance of evidence shows that the Bible teaches that women are inferior and must not teach men. Evidence in support of my position, beyond what I have already presented in this thread, may be found in my articles
"Women Are Not the Glory of God," at
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/women_in_the_bible.html
"Women May Not Teach Men," at
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/silent_women.html
I would welcome further comment.
Kind Regards,
Joe
Buster, it's scary to think that you, or anyone, could find such intellectual dishonesty "nice work".
Just sad.
Cliff observed, "I had never read anywhere in the couple books I've read on Paul such an idea as that he was quoting false teachings, and not promoting them."
Joe Alward responds:
There's no evidence that Paul was merely reciting false teachings. Nowhere does Paul give his audience the slightest hint, the smallest warning, that he was not stating his own beliefs. For those who believe that Paul was guided or inspired by God when he gave his speeches, or wrote his letters, it is almost impossible to understand why God did not give Paul the good sense to caution his audience that they were hearing false teachings--if that's what they were--that should be rejected. Either God approved of what Paul was saying and therefore did not approve of women teaching, or else Paul's comments were not inspired by God. If the former, then women may not teach; if the latter, then the Bible is not the word of God in its totality.
JosephAlward,
3 But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God. 4 Every man that prays or prophesies having something on his head shames his head; 5 but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for it is one and the same as if she were a [woman] with a shaved head. 6 For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also be shorn; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, as he is Gods image and glory; but the woman is mans glory. 8 For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man; 9 and, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. 10 That is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of the angels. [1 Corinthians 11:3-10, NWT]
Notice 1 Corinthians 11:3. Yes, verses 3, and this is an often misused verse, through 10 are a Corinthian doctrine (ignore paragraph at verse 7). Paul will refute this doctrine in verses 11 thru 16. Verse 1 and 2 are also part of this Corinthian doctrine for we know that Paul did not want anyone belonging to or following him (1 Cor 1:12) as this divides the faith. Paul is still refuting material the Corinthians sent him, as mentioned at 1 Corinthians 7:1. He quotes from it as he does here. The material on the Memorial that appears later in this same chapter is also nothing more than a continuation of this line of reasoning. Simple, but the anointed class did not bring it to our attention. What they have done over the years was embarrass the women in the Faith, making them wear head coverings on the platform and give them a second class status to be dominated by men. Judge for YOUR own selves: Is it fitting for a woman to pray uncovered to God? (Before the congregation, of course, as this is the context). Does not nature itself teach YOU that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him; but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? Because her hair is given her instead (notice this) of a headdress. So, she does not need a head covering as the Corinthians demanded. Furthermore, men and women were equal in the Faith. For just as the woman is out of the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are out of God (vs 12). This argument by Paul refutes the Corinthians statement made in verse 3 as to who is head over who. Can you imagine your wife saying grace now or offering prayer at the meetings? [Acts 1:14, 2:17-18] Certainly! How sad it is and how disgusting the little mistakes are, for they have caused many a lot of grief.
The problem is of course the way that Paul writes. It is his use of sharp contrasts and the seeming lack of transitional phrases that we need today to keep thoughts separated for us.
Translators put in I where They would be more appropriate as Paul quotes from or explains the work of others. In this way simple words are used to force doctrine that Paul tried to stop. I think that before we attempt to understand Pauls writing we should learn more about him, his responsibility in the Faith, his acceptance of women prophets (Acts 18:26; 21:9 Romans 16:3), and his constant war against apostasy (Acts 15:1-35 21:13-28). He stood almost alone in fighting false doctrine spread by Christian Jews in particular (Titus 1:10). He started the Elder arrangement (something other than the natural relationship that older men had in the Faith) to combat what one brother stated: the apostasy, contentiousness, envy, and other works of the flesh engulfing and smothering the brotherhood in the Messiah. He did this to fulfill his responsibility as an apostle to the nations (1 Timothy 2:7). Besides doing this himself (Acts 20:25-38), Paul also used Timothy and Titus to do this work for him. He specially trained these men for this task and explained matters to them. This would help them to understand what kind of qualities to look for in the men they would select, and how to pick out those spreading false teachings. Later, when this arrangement was abused and used to enslave others, the apostle John put an end to it by placing the responsibility for doctrine on the individual doing the teaching and not on any supposed leader or guardian of the Faith. (1 John 4:1) In this way the apostle John discontinued the elder arrangement late in the first century. Such authority could only be passed along by men specifically appointed by Paul to lay their hands on others.
In 1 Timothy 1:20, the apostle Paul was explaining to Timothy about Hymenaeus, and Alexander, who he handed over to Satan that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme. Now, it would be nice to know just why Paul interfered with the influence such men had in the Faith, would it not? Such exposure and strong language regarding them closely follows our Lords example when he said to Peter; Get behind me Satan, because you think not Gods thoughts, but those of men. [Mark 8:33, NWT] If we knew what their blasphemy was, then we could avoid teaching such things so as not to be found Scripturally in blasphemy ourselves, is this not true? Yes, and 1 Timothy chapter 2 considers why Paul had to turn Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan, as he put it. This informed Timothy on important doctrinal issues raging at the time and exposed attitudes of special interest to Paul which supplemented the information in Chapter 3. This also prepared him on moral issues as well. It is easier to understand 1 Timothy chapter 2 if the second half is considered first.
7 For the purpose of this witness I was appointed a preacher and an apostleI am telling the truth, I am not lyinga teacher of nations in the matter of faith and truth.
8 Therefore I desire that in every place the men carry on prayer, lifting up loyal hands, apart from wrath and debates. 9 Likewise I desire the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, 10 but in the way that befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression. 15 However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind.
1 That statement is faithful. If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, . . . [1 Timothy 2:7 thru 3:1, NWT]
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, ...[KJV]
1 Here is a saying that you can rely on: To want to be a presiding elder ... [JB]
Ask yourself, why did Paul suddenly find the need to defend himself and his position in the Faith to Timothy? What was he revealing that was so startling that it needed reinforcement? Ask yourself also, why did the New World Translation use the word That at 1 Timothy 3:1 as if the information on women was good advice and faithful when other translations and the text itself reveal that the information that follows on the elders is being referred to in this way? Such a small word, that, we would hardly give it a second thought. This means that the information just given, namely the verses that preceded That, This, or Here, are not FAITHFUL, TRUE, or RELIABLE. This is the kind of transitional phraseology that you get from Paul. In between this sandwich, vss 2:7 and 3:1, we have some of the doctrine of Hymenaeus and Alexander quoted word-for-word. Looks pretty good too, but, full of regulations and restrictions typical of the Jewish Faith. It teaches a form of prayer (men only) with uplifted hands common to Jewish and in modern times Pentecostal religions. Anyone who saw the movie Yentyl with Barbra Streisand could appreciate the effect such doctrine had on them. It restricts doctrinal discussion and yet the apostle Paul was constantly debating doctrine in his letters and being critical of many in the Faith. Such men wanted to prevent this kind of interference with their views. It contains a dress code for women (not for men) and in effect dictates their lifestyle for them, (leaving more money for the men or contributions for the leaders by eliminating expensive jewelry) all on the pretense that God is being served by such. False doctrine is always propagated in Gods name, of course, and these men were no exception.
How many women failed to make adequate preparation for childbirth as a result of such teaching and died? Perhaps you even know some who have not been kept safe through childbearing. Modern medical practices may have reduced some of the anxiety associated with birth but have not eliminated them altogether. These were lies, of course, and Paul was bringing them out so that Timothy could watch out for such men. The doctrine is dangerous. It offers a false hope for women, a carrot so-to- speak, to keep them in line. The Watchtowers teaching that their members will survive Armageddon and have children in the Kingdom is very much like this and tends to accomplish the same thing. Remember the Scriptures teach that everyone must die. Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom as everyone resurrected into this kingdom be they good or vile will have immortal bodies at that time.
With Paul it only takes one word to identify a false teaching. Notice:
33 . . .As in all the congregations of the holy ones, 34 let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. 35 If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation.
36 What? [1 Corinthians 14:33-36, NWT]
The word is a single Greek letter translated. W H A T ? It does not mean, I did not hear you, please repeat. In the Greek text it is a particle of distinction between two connected terms. In this text Paul is saying to such Corinthians in regard to this doctrine who do you think you are teaching this. He went on to tongue lash them with the statement:
Was it from YOU that the word of God came forth, or was it only as far as YOU that it reached? [vs 36]
In this way the distinction is made, bringing the false doctrine out in the open for all to see. At least there is sufficient information here in 1 Corinthians to put it together. In 1 Timothy 2: it is much more difficult and requires a thorough knowledge of Pauls work and attitude toward women in the Faith.
It stands to reason then that if the second part of 1 Timothy chapter 2 deals with the doctrine of Hymenaeus and Alexander, then the first part must in some way deal with it as well. It contains information regarding the attitude that we as Christians should have to Kings and others in high position. Paul tells Timothy that we should not be at odds with such rulers. I take this to mean that Hymenaeus and Alexander were aggressive and irritated such rulers, being ready to fight with them. They would also support the law and salvation through the priesthood involving many men or some variation of such. There being one God and one mediator between God and men would cancel such thoughts. Paul simply contrasts their thinking with the proper view, and Timothy in turn could easily pick up on this and any aggressive tendencies in those he met and reject them as elder material. Simple, effective and typical of Pauls work.
Since Paul wrote about such things to the Corinthians and to Timothy we should not be surprised to find him including this same information in his letter to the Ephesians as well. The problems in Ephesus were very much the same as they were in Corinth and elsewhere. Men, deceivers with empty words (Ephesians 5:6,12) were there as well. Paul would now take the lead in reproving and exposing such men (vs 13-14) setting an example for them to follow. After giving advice to be watchful, sober, spiritually alert and happy, he gives the following word-for-word dissertation with this introduction of what such false teaching consist of:
The introduction:
15 So keep strict watch that how YOU walk is not as unwise but as wise [persons], 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked. 17 On this account cease becoming unreasonable, but go on perceiving what the will of Jehovah is. [Ephesians 5:15-17]
The empty words:
18 Also, do not be getting drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, but keep getting filled with spirit, 19 speaking to yourselves with psalms and praises to God and spiritual songs, singing and accompanying yourselves with music in YOUR hearts to Jehovah, 20 in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ giving thanks always for all things to our God and Father. 21 Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. 22 Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, 23 because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of [this] body. 24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, so let wives also be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, continue loving YOUR wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it, 26 that he might sanctify it, cleansing it with the bath of water by means of the word, 27 that he might present the congregation to himself in its splendor, not having a spot or a wrinkle or any of such things, but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also does the congregation, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 For this reason a man will leave [his] father and [his] mother and he will stick to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. 32 This sacred secret is great. [Ephesians 5:18-32, NWT]
A return to reality with:
. . . Now I am speaking with respect to Christ and the congregation. 33 Nevertheless, also, let each one of YOU individually so love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband. [Ephesians 5:32-33, NWT]
The doctrine of such deceivers was offered to the Ephesians with much more finesse than the manner in which it was presented to the Corinthians. The main points are however the same, seemingly good behavior with emphasis upon the LAW which they call "spirit", the "psalms" mainly works of David, the subjection of the woman in the Faith to the man. The blame for it all is placed on Christ as if they are honoring Him in all this and have His approval. The carrot is held out that this will be good for the woman in the long run and that the husband will be supportive of the wife. And their claim that all this is a sacred secret as if it comes from God himself, they being the revealers of His will. Once again the transitional phraseology of Paul stands out as he isolates the false teachings with Now I am speaking with respect to Christ and the congregation, as he considers this subject with the Ephesians. Mixed in with such lies are some truth, so Paul simply extracts it, (Nevertheless), which in effect places the men and woman on equal footing just as verse 21 stated all along. Thus " deep respect" stands in sharp contrast with " subjection of wives" and all the rest of their theology is also fully exposed for the Ephesians to see.
These verses deal with subjection in the home or as an example to others and do not delegate women to a secondary position in the Faith. Such subjection is natural, good behavior and does not imply blind obedience or inferiority. In the case of 1 Peter 3:1-6 it is actually a request to women to relinquish their freedom in the Faith so as to win over their unbelieving husbands. The issues such women were faced with are familiar ones. The apostle Paul fought them constantly. It was a case of not picking on an open wound even though such women had the freedom to do so. Peter used Sarah as an an example and thus did not associate this thought with the law or regulations of the Jews or Jewish Christians who supported such theology.
Men usually held office in the Faith and the scriptures are written with this in mind but women WERE NOT excluded from such office notice:
10 Also, let these be tested as to fitness first, then let them serve as ministers, as they are free from accusation. 11 Women should likewise be serious, not slanderous, moderate in habits, faithful in all things. 12 Let ministerial servants be husbands of one wife, presiding in a fine manner over children and their own households. 13 For the men who minister in a fine manner are acquiring for themselves a fine standing and great freeness of speech in the faith in connection with Christ Jesus. [ 1 Timothy 3:10-13 NWT]
It would appear that women would not qualify as deacon [ ministerial servants ] as they would be the partner of such deacons but notice what this same Apostle also taught the Romans:
I recommend to YOU Phoe'be our sister, who is a minister of the congregation that is in Cen'chreae, [ Romans 16:1 NWT]
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: (Romans 16:1 KJV)
The word translated as 'minister' or 'servant' in this verse is DEACON, the same word that Paul used in his letter to Timothy. The Kingdom of our Lord will not be a place were women will be dominated by men. The apostle Paul has established a Scriptural precedent in this regard, and efforts to conceal such truth through translation have not succeeded.
So if we are discussing women ministers or teachers it makes no difference. Not only in Paul's day but in the kingdom itself women were/are equal in the Faith despite all attempts by men to dominate them.
Joseph
Joseph Malik states,
"So if we are discussing women ministers or teachers it makes no difference. Not only in Paul's day but in the kingdom itself women were/are equal in the Faith despite all attempts by men to dominate them. "
Joe Alward responds:
I won't dispute your contention that women are equal to men "in the Faith," but one cannot get around the facts that Paul said that he would not suffer a woman to teach man, and that he cited ancient scripture as justification: the woman was the one who was in transgression in the garden, not man. If you want to argue that we should not accept Paul's teachings about women because they were just his opinion, and not the intentions of God, then I would not disagree. However, once one accepts that writers of the Bible were not inspired by God, how could we be sure that the writers were not just expressing their opinion--or perhaps it was just their hope--that Jesus was resurrected?
I won't dispute your contention that women are equal to men "in the Faith," but one cannot get around the facts that Paul said that he would not suffer a woman to teach man, and that he cited ancient scripture as justification: the woman was the one who was in transgression in the garden, not man.
JosephAlward,
There is nothing to get around. Paul was teaching Timothy the kind of comments to look out for in the ones he was to appoint as Bishop and not lay hands on them. This comment that you attribute to Paul is not his teaching for the Faith to embrace but his example to Timothy of the kind of influence that was to be suppressed and avoided. In other words this saying that you attribute to him was not a true teaching. Paul's true sayings contrasted such thought and continued a few verses later where he said:
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
Now Paul was aware of the prejudicial view such Jewish Christian men had and used men to combat them. Even the apostles or our Lord had similar views. Our Lord dealt with them sensibly and carefully showing them by example the error of such conduct and brought women into the ministry such as the women at the well over their objections. Paul was more direct and forceful and appointed Bishops that were not of this mindset to suppress such thinking and used men like Timothy to represent him personally in doing this. His letter of instruction to Timothy was quite detailed and to the point, but Paul's point has been twisted around by men to make it seem as a doctrine of the Faith not a doctrine of error.
Joseph
Joseph Malik: "
This comment that you attribute to Paul is not his teaching for the Faith to embrace but his example to Timothy of the kind of influence that was to be suppressed and avoided.
"
Joseph Alward: I can't be certain, but I think you are saying that Paul was teaching that his followers should avoid anyone who would say,
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
If that is what you're claiming, Joseph, then I must point out that nowhere does Paul give the slightest hint to his audience that this was not a view he held himself, and nowhere does Paul give any clue that he was talking about the kind of teaching his audience should regard as false. If Paul was as wise as you apparently believe he was, then surely he would have known that his words would be interpreted by virtually everyone to mean that he didnt approve of women teaching men, and knowing this, he never would not have failed to clarify his meaning. The fact that he didnt do this is strong evidence that his words should be taken at face value, and that means that we must believe that Paul wouldnt allow women to teach because he felt that the first woman to attempt to do thisEvehad failed mankind miserably. Furthermore, Paul not only said that women couldnt teach man, he wouldnt even allow them to open their mouths in church to ask a question:
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. 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."
(1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
and if they needed to learn anything, they should wait until they get home, and they could ask their husbands.
Few teachings in the Bible is clearer than the one which holds that women are inferior to men, and that they may not teach men.
I think Ive said about all I wanted to say on this topic for now, Joseph.
Edited by - JosephAlward on 21 December 2002 21:55:53
If that is what youre claiming, Joseph, then I must point out that nowhere does Paul give the slightest hint to his audience that this was not a view he held himself, and nowhere does Paul give any clue that he was talking about the kind of teaching his audience should regard as false.
JosephAlward,
Sure he does but you will simply not accept it. All this was already covered in Women Equal In the Faith and there is no need to repeat it. Not just false but Timothy should not appoint them to the office of Bishop and give them authority over others. It is that simple. This verse does not stand alone. Paul did much the same thing in nearly all his letters as he did in 1 Cor. that you reference since this problem existed anywhere Christian Jews that followed James lived. If you simply would take the time to read the very next verse you would see Paul's wrath raise in this letter when he said: 36 What? And then he rebukes them in no uncertain terms by saying to them: came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? That put them and this teaching in its place. 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
For some there was no hope and they would remain ignorant. But the ones that would listen would acknowledge such error and adhere once again to the commandments of the Lord which Paul wrote unto them that did not prevent women from teaching others just as the women at the well was encouraged to do.
Joseph
JA
that is th e same arguement i put to and elder a few months ago. he said that the scriptures are not black and white and if we start taking it to literally we end up in a mess. so i put it to him why we should take the 'abstain from blood' scripture so literally that we cant accept blood transfusions? because he couldnt answer that without trashing what he previously said, he told my i was talking like an apostate.
