Is the Taliban right to support absolutely, even more enthusiastically, 1 Cor. 14:34. Could this mean that Muslims are better at keeping 'the law' than is the church of Jesus Christ? 1 Cor. 14:34"women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says". If there actually IS a law that can be found in Holy scripture, demanding silence and subordination of women, what actually IS IT and WHERE is it? Are the Afghanistan Taliban therefore only doing God's will in imposing it, so are right to inflict this restrictive 'LAW' on women, if it really IS a Law of God? Can anybody tell me the chapter and verse of this edict of the Law. A good place to search would be Exodus, Deuteronomy or Leviticus, maybe Numbers at a pinch. I thought the law referred to should be in one of those somewhere, but my search engine hasn't found it yet. I've tried using 'law = 88 hits', 'woman = 33 hits', 'silence = 2 hits', 'speak = 65 hits' and even 'subordinate = 0 hits', as a keyword in my search but still have not come up with this LAW yet. Seems a very obscure law. Maybe it isn't a law at all, just a suggestion, but I can't even find a suggestion that women should shut up when men are talking, using any of those search key words, so I'm totally stumped. Perhaps I should search the Koran instead to find this Law of God. Maybe the Koran has better information in it. The Taliban seem to know where it is OK and are very enthusiastic about enforcing it. It just seems odd to me, (a believer led by the Spirit, as Paul suggests we all should be), that women must be constrained by this 'Law' but men should be led by the Spirit and are free from 'the law'. Can it be that women are not 'set free from the law of sin and death', so must be submissive to 'This Law'. Have the Taliban got it right and the church got it wrong, I wonder? .
There is nothing in the Qur’an that forbids women from leading prayer (being an Imam). Rachel Rinaldo – Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology, University of Colorado Boulder – writes: ‘Aside from Indonesia, there are many other countries where women have begun to play a role as ulamas (scholars of Islamic doctrine and law). Women prayer leaders (imams), however, remain rare. ‘Many Muslims in Indonesia and elsewhere believe that women can be prayer leaders only to all-female congregations. Women-only mosques are still unusual, as in most Muslim societies, women pray at home or in a special section of the mosque. The only place with a long tradition of Muslim women who lead prayers is China. ‘Among China’s 21 million Muslims, women-led mosques and Quranic schools go back to at least the 19th century. The phenomenon has apparently spread in recent years as the government has loosened some restrictions on religion. ‘In other countries, governments have established programs to train women ulamas – and imams – as a strategy to counter the growth of extremism. ‘For example, in Egypt, the Religious Endowments Ministry plans to appoint 144 female imams for the first time so as to teach women about Islam and stop them from being radicalized. And in 2006, Morocco introduced the “murshidat” – Muslim women religious leaders – who now number over 400. In Turkey, as part of its effort to spread Islam more widely, the government has increased the number of official Muslim female preachers, who currently number over 700. ‘In Europe and North America, women have recently begun to lead prayers at several mosques. Most of these mosques are for women, but more controversially, Muslim feminist and scholar Amina Wadud has led prayer services for mixed congregations. in New York City and London.’ (Online article, published in June, 2017).
So this seems to indicate the Taliban are bit of an heretical unIslamic sect when it comes to what the Qur’an has to say on the matter then?
To purposefully conflate those who do not believe in women's ordination or read the NT in a traditional manner on this and adjacent subjects with the Taliban, is such a low blow I'm genuinely surprised at this. Unedifying.
Perhaps you are able to quote chapter and verse on this LAW of God then, presumably to be found somewhere in Holy Scripture, that they seem unwittingly to also be enforcing on women in the name of God, seemingly holding a similar opinion to Christian traditionalists, that such a LAW actually has been issued to women by God, on the subject of women's silence. Those who hold similar views should at least admit to who their allies are and be able to quote The LAW from the scripture or the Koran.
I don’t see “law” anywhere within miles of this. The meaning of any law is in its concrete application. Laws can be amended, fall into disuse, or simply become obsolete. Sometimes the assumptions of the law lose objective validity. The phrase “because of the angels” in 1 Cor. 11:10, for example, was a reference to the angels of Gen. 6:1-4, a passage that today can only be interpreted as myth rather than literal history. The three-tiered ministry with which we’re familiar today didn’t exist in the 1st century, and whatever confusion of roles may have concerned Paul in the mid-1st century has no bearing on social or cultural attitudes in the 21st. Paul did at times give instructions that he explicitly intended to be taken as legal commands after the manner of a rabbinic ruling (1 Cor. 7:10-13), which subsequent ecclesiastical law modified freely. There is also no law vs. grace dichotomy in Paul’s letters: that is a 16th century Lutheran invention. The notion that whatever Paul said (or what we think Paul said) is immutable for all time, would likely have shocked Paul and simply doesn’t hold water. Contemporary opposition to the ordination of women is silly, and reflects attitudes that are crudely discriminatory, but it hardly seems just (or sane) to compare such types with the Taliban, who have committed all manner of unspeakable atrocities against women for learning to read, listening to music, or stepping outside their homes unescorted. Whatever cogent point the OP intended to make here is less than obvious to me.
Speaking of the Taliban, Dr Farhan Zahid – Counter-Terrorism and Security Analyst (Pakistan) – writes: ‘Since its inception the movement has always been Pashtun-led and Pashtun dominated. ‘Pashtunwali code has its roots in their ancient culture and not in religion as it is often misunderstood in West. It predates their conversion to Islam during seventh century. It does not matter from which social strata of society a Pashtun belongs to, he has to adapt to the code if he wants to be respected in tribal ethos. They follow the code religiously and those who try to shun it away become disconnected and pariah.’ (Online Article: ‘Understanding Taliban Through the Prism of Pashtunwali Code.’) According to Dr Zahid, among the salient features of the Code is ‘Namus: Honour and respect of women either belonging to the family of a Pashtun or tribe.’ Treating women with honour and respect accords with Islam; however, denying women the right to work (except in hospitals); the right to an education; the right to speak in public; or the right to move outdoors independently (without having to be accompanied by a close male relative; for example, a father, brother or husband) most certainly does not. According to Dr Zahid, the Taliban see women as a: ‘source of evil and transgression.’ This is at odds with authentic aḥadīth which state that a mother is three times more deserving of a child’s respect and good treatment than a father; and that ‘paradise lies at a mother’s feet.’ Dr Zahid describes the Taliban version of Islam as: ‘A hotchpotch of Pashtunwali-Deobandism, with Saudi-inspired practices.’ (‘Ibid.’) The Deobandi movement is considered to be ultra-orthodox, and highly conservative in approach; akin to the Wahabi version of Islam. According to Dr Zahid: ‘Taliban went further in following the Saudi model and considered all of their practices as ‘true’ interpretations of Quran. As Deobandism is more of an urban phenomenon in India and Pakistan the Deobandism of Taliban was much different and their practices were more inspired of Saudi system and the laws. ‘Though slightly different in creed the essence of both Wahabism and Deobandism is the same, at least to the extent of their political agendas and approaches towards treatment of women and minorities.’ (‘Ibid.’). He goes on: ‘It is very true that Pashtunwali code is not part of Islam, but Islam was taken by Pashtuns an addition to the code and it became a part of their culture. The real essence of Islam is very different from the governing code of Pashtun tribes. In other words the Pashtuns had embraced Islam in their own way and absorbed it into their code. ‘Because of their little knowledge about the outside world and their reliance on the only source they had, they were left with the only option which was Pashtunwali code and they interpreted it as true Islam. Their rigidity and inflexibility was proof of their ignorance about the outside world and most importantly about the spirit of Islam.’ (‘Ibid.’).
1 Cor.14:33-34. " God is a God not of disorder but of peace. (As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says." If indeed it actually IS saint Paul who dictated this sentence to his scribe, in his letter to the Corinthian church, surely we should be able to find the Old Testament LAW which saint Paul is referring to. Paul was VERY well versed in the LAW, he more than anyone would have known where this LAW can be found, though I can't find any other sentence supposedy written by Paul anywhere else in scripture where HE appeals to THE LAW as an authority for imposing a code of conduct upon Christian believers. His usual appeal is to alignment of one's conduct to that which is in keeping with The life in the Holy Spirit, not within the confines and restrictions of the LAW. I think Paul was inclined to offer Apostolic 'advice' on proper Christian conduct, rather than 'Laying down Law' like the Judaisers tried. That may be so but nothing written by Paul suggests reinstating LAW as a means of controlling bahaviour for those who have been renewed by The Holy Spirit in baptism, whether they are either male or female. So why the exception only in the case of women, in 1 Cor.14:33-34? .
Paul was not explicitly referring to a specific piece of legislation; he was referring to the Chumash, the Pentateuch, which contains plenty of legislation regarding the subjection of women to their husbands (e.g., Num. 30:3-16), as well as the rationale for such legislation (cf. Gen. 3:16). Any 1st century Jewish hearer would have understood the reference. We might be liberal Protestants, but Paul was not. You might think that, but that's not what Paul said. Paul was apparently aware of the sayings of Jesus regarding divorce (which were subsequently reported in the Synoptic Gospels). He interpreted Jesus' sayings as a legal ruling - i.e., a command, not merely 'advice' - analogous to the rabbinic halakha - a binding interpretation of the legislation in the Pentateuch - and then supplemented Jesus' ruling with one of his own. That is precisely the pattern we find elsewhere in 1st and 2nd century Judaism: a pattern of rulings built upon prior rulings that ultimately go back to the text of the Pentateuch as either their basis or their rationale. Both the form and the content of Paul's pronouncements here and elsewhere in his letters make it clear that he did indeed understand the Pentateuchal legislation to be regulative for the early Christian communities he supported. Any deviations from the rest of Judaism at that time (during which Judaism and Christianity were not institutionally separate) were nonetheless to be understood within that overall framework. I don't know how anyone who has read Paul's letters could come to such a conclusion (or why using all caps would make the argument more cogent). Romans 1, Romans 13:8-10, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, etc., all appeal to the Pentateuch for the purpose of regulating behavior. 'Freedom in the spirit' did not mean for Paul what you seem to think it meant. None of this means that we have to agree with Paul today. I do not agree with Paul. But it is a disservice to Paul to attribute views to him that he clearly did not hold. As I said above, we might be liberal Protestants, but Paul was not.
Nothing in any of those texts from Leviticus or Genesis would lead to a conclusion that women should be forbidden by LAW to speak in the Christian assembly of the saints, or even for that matter to teach or expound the word, i.e. prophesy. Your analysis surprises me. One might even wonder whether St Paul actually had any opposition at Corinth or in the Galatian church, if he was SO keen on making all his chuches comply with Jewish LAW as a matter of course, as you seem to be suggesting. I can't imagine why St Paul would have even bothered writing most of Galatians, if he had no theological or practical reasons for opposing the notion that "Both the form and the content of his pronouncements here and elsewhere in his letters make it clear that he did indeed understand the Pentateuchal legislation to be regulative for the early Christian communities he supported." St Paul seems to have eventually got himself kicked out of just about every synagogue he ever visited throughout the entire Roman Empire, for specifically NOT considering Pentateuchal legislation to be regulative for the early Christian communities he supported. It was St Paul who was mostly responsible for making Christianity distinctive from Judaism and the Judaising 'believers' didn't like Paul for exactly that fact. Freedom in the Spirit meant for Paul what Paul himself wrote. "For the written law condemns to death, but the Spirit gives life". 2 Cor.3:6.What Paul playfully calls 'the life giving law of the Spirit', could not be less like the state of bondage to rule and custom, scruple and canon, praise and blame, from which life in the Spirit sets us FREE. Rom.8:2 I don't believe I am disagreeing with Paul. (More likely I'm disagreeing with a Corinthian church pseudepigraphic copyist, at 1 Cor.14:33b-35. Paul is actually notorious for his disregard for Jewish Law, particularly circumcision for his gentile converts. It would even seem that Paul regarded, after his conversion and regeneration experience, that LAW keeping, for achieving salvation, is essentially a futile 'RELIGIOUS' exercise leading to death of the individual. It reflects all too accurately the temper of ALL established 'religion', and that very passion for the LAW was what crucified Christ for HIS nonconformity to it, (according to the RELIGIOUS authorities who handed down his death sentence). 1 Cor.2:6-16. .
And yet, that's precisely how he interpreted it. Ancient methods of interpretation often had a quality that strikes modern readers as bizarre. (Examples of this are legion, and they're by no means limited to the 1st century.) Just because Paul's argument doesn't make sense to us in the 21st century doesn't mean it didn't make sense to Paul and his audience in the 1st century. Paul's instructions regarding decorum during public prayers exactly describes expectations of decorum in Orthodox Jewish congregations to this very day. It strains credulity to suggest that rival communities with diametrically opposed agendas could somehow develop identical standards of decorum on a basis other than the one set of texts they had in common. Furthermore, if you look at (non-Christian) Jewish writings in the 1st century, you will see that Paul's approach to these matters was quite conventional; other prominent Jewish leaders interpreted those texts in much the same way Paul did. Like I said above, it doesn't have to make sense to us, but we do have to acknowledge that it did make sense to Paul. I've already cited evidence to the contrary. Paul's attitude to the law was quite conventional. What made him distinct from other Jews was his propagation of the message of a crucified Messiah: If we want to understand Paul within his own context, the first thing we must recognize is that no Jew believed that keeping the Mosaic law was the way one entered the Mosaic covenant. Jews were born into the covenant; the purpose of keeping the commandments was to remain in good standing within the terms of that covenant. The idea that Jews were engaging in sacrifices and ritual purifications in order to earn their claim to membership in the covenant is nonsense, a Reformation-era invention. There was nothing to earn, they were already in the covenant. Furthermore, the punishment consequent upon disobedience of the commandments was collective, not individual: one kept the commandments so that the nation as such would not lose the privileges of the covenant, viz., possession of the land and the power of self-rule. Keeping the commandments has nothing to do with the afterlife; its domain of application, including its rewards and punishments, is this world: So, just what was it that Paul was opposing in Galatians? It takes Paul 4 chapters to tell us explicitly what exactly was going on: So, apparently there were Jewish Christians - perhaps Gentile converts to Judaism (who subsequently associated with followers of Jesus) - who were telling Gentile Christians that they had to keep commandments that were specific to the Jews, in order to (1) worship the Jewish God and (2) have a part in the coming new world (which would be inaugurated by the return of Jesus and the cosmic judgment of the nations). Let's be clear: Judaism has never taught this; not in the 1st century, not in the 21st century. These teachers were imposing a requirement on Gentiles - the performance of all the commandments of the law - which was not required of the Jews, who had only to be born, to enter the covenant. Of course Paul objected to it. Let's make sure we don't lose sight of this: Paul and subsequent rabbinic Judaism were in complete agreement that (1) the Mosaic law is not the means by which Jews enter the covenant, (2) that the righteous of all nations will be acceptable to God at the Last Day, and thus (3) that conversion to Judaism is not necessary for Gentiles, for whom there is no promise of a specific land. For Paul, Jews enter the covenant (of Moses) by being born; Gentiles enter the covenant (of Abraham) by being reborn. In both cases, the covenantal obligations (i.e., commandments) are the means of staying in the covenant, not entering it. The faith of Abraham (Gal. 3:6) and the "faith of Christ" (Gal. 2:16), and the divine mercy which they presuppose, which serve as the bases of these covenants are in each case 'givens', i.e., not something consequent upon the actions of new entrants to those covenants. There is thus no dichotomy between "law" and "grace" in Paul, if ones reads him as a 1st century Jew rather than as a 16th century Christian.
While making an unwarranted association in the content and application of, 'The Law", while simultaneously unwittingly contradicting what was previously dictated by himself at 1 Cor.11:5-6. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. [_] Or was it [just] from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order. If the possibly non-Pauline interpolation is ignored betweeen 33b-35, (The place that many manuscripts of 1 Cor. have it inserted, but not all, some put it after v.40 as an afterthought.) It makes perfect sense still. Paul was simply appealing for order among the congregation generally when men or women were speaking under the influence of The Holy Spirit, for the edification of the church. The Corinthian 'problem' was disorder and division, not 'women'. What is then left is pure 'Paul' without contradictions or misogynistic 'Jewish', legislative constraint. Instead of highfultin theories concerning Paul's 'Jewishness' as an explanation for the weirdness of 33b-35 and its original place in the text of 1 Cor. I much prefer the Occam's Razor method of explaining why it makes little sense. Because it was probably written by someone nowhere near as inspired by God as was St Paul who undoubtedly dictated most of the rest of 1 Corinthians and ensured his theology was consistent throughout.
You are conflating two distinct issues here. One is the dependence of the argument in this passage upon the Pentateuchal text. The other is the known textual variants that have the verses in question in a different order than that found in most modern Bibles. I was only dealing with the first issue in my reply above, not the second. 1 Cor. 14 is not the only place in Paul’s writings (or even in 1 Corinthians) where Paul assumes that there is a specific social hierarchy that is endorsed by the Pentateuch. “Order” by definition implies priority: one thing before/after another. The idea that we can read Paul as though he were a liberal Protestant is the assumption I am countering. I’m not interested in debating the textual question. That being said, the contradiction you’re alluding to is practical, not conceptual: as E.P. Sanders has noted, a woman cannot simultaneously “cover her head while speaking in church” but also “not speak in church.” Regardless of what strategy we employ to ‘save the appearances’, the fact remains that both maxims assume that there is a definite social hierarchy. We do not have to agree with Paul about this, but if we’re truly interested in historical truth we do have to assume that he meant what he said. Let’s also not lose sight of the fact that you and I are on the same side of the fundamental issue in question: we’re both anti-misogyny. I just don’t think that comparing reactionaries within Christianity to the Taliban is either an apt comparison or an effective rhetorical strategy. The former group is merely silly and anachronistic; the latter group is nothing short of barbaric. I think we can win the argument without resorting to such inflammatory comparisons.
You should read the whole passage. That is about a woman not judging or being a witness in prophecy. Look here: This below comes from Jewish thought, and concerns what Paul is referring to when he wrote, “as the law says”. Duet. 19:17 says, “two men shall stand”. This refers to witnesses, and because of this masculine language, women cannot be witnesses, according to Jewish thought. https://www.sefaria.org/Shevuot.30a.1?lang=bi Additionally, there is this from the Mishnah. The Mishnah was written between the ending of the second and the third century . They thought the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period (516 BCE – 70 CE) would be forgotten. That is the “law” that Paul is pointing to. Paul teaches that a woman cannot be a witness to prophecy nor judge it, and that a woman should be silent concerning this matter, just as she is silent as a witness according to the law. This is stuff that is easy to find. I don’t think you nor Tiffy want to find it. That is your opinion. To claim Gen. 6:1-4 is only a myth discredits Paul’s writing, as well a Genesis. Angels are real. Demons are real. Not myths. Your opinion, again. There was the elder and the deacon at the local level. Then you have Paul, Peter, James, Timothy, and others, on a regional level. 3 tiers. I know that some disagree. Right. Because now we can take sex hormones and have sex change surgeries. Or we can play dress up as the opposite sex. Or we can just insist on whatever pronouns we want. And roles are whatever. We have landed here post social revolutions of the 1960’s. We have a hippie brand of Christianity right now. Someone smarter than me said that heresy sometimes has to die off. Maybe that is true. Paul disagrees with you. https://youtube.com/shorts/keABz6qY6Z4?si=YfgiS1sr9ljTfyV8 Your psychological tricks are amazing. Claim that the scriptures are “silly” and reflect attitudes that are “crudely discriminatory”… then mention the Taliban and their unspeakable atrocities against women. In comparison, your claim is not nearly as bad as the Taliban, right. That way, people might miss that you are claiming that the scriptures are NOT from God and should be ignored…and they might even give you some likes as a Muslim agrees with you. Because the man is the head of the church and household. You know about all these passages, Tiffy. But you chose to ignore or twist them . 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 1 Corinthians 14:31-38, 1 Timothy 2:8–15, 1 Timothy 3:1-12, Titus 1:5-9, Titus 2:2-5, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-21, 1 Peter 3: 1-6, Matthew 19:4-6 Silence. Silence is a covering for her mind, whereas speaking unveils it. Speaking exposes her to those that do not love her, to hostility, even to cruelty. And she should cover her head when she prays or prophesies. And she should cover her body. For Westerners to better understand, compare this to covering her breasts. Further, do not make her breasts common or public, nor pretend that they are like the chest of a man. For a woman’s breasts are better, more valuable. Maybe not when it comes to hard work or fighting. But breasts are for higher and more important purposes than the chest of a man. Gender roles are this way too. You blur them. Reduce them. Defacing the true nature of a woman according to how God made her. And you deface the man as well. In doing so, you deface the image of God, according to how God defines that image. Rather, you make your own image, your own definitions of woman and man, according to the god of this world. You are right about that, Invictus. The other things that you wrote in that post, some of it was interesting. But it looks like Paul is pointing to this: Duet. 19:17 says, “two men shall stand”. This refers to witnesses, and because of this masculine language, women cannot be witnesses. The Mishnah backs this up - not that it needs it. No, Tiffy. It is not a contradiction. I know, you have a block because of your wife. Sorry, buddy. This might be a little silly. But try this. Maybe it will help. Eating in my living room: 1. People should not eat in my living room. But if you have a food tray you can eat there. 2. People should not eat tree nuts in my living room, or even have them around. 3. I do not permit people to eat peanuts in my living room. Leave them out of the house. It’s simple. People can only eat in my living room if they follow the rules. Likewise, a woman can speak in church, but she follows rules. Men have rules too, but that is another topic. Women speaking in church: 1. She should cover her head when she prophesies or prays in church. 2. She should not JUDGE prophecy but be silent. 3. She should not TEACH men in church. But sorry, buddy. They are not supposed to be a priest. That’s gender bending. Wow. You guys, Tiffy and Invictus, should come with warning labels. I think Anglican Forums should place a banner on your profiles. Just like those who have taken an oath and have the “Anglican” banner… you guys should have one that in some way warns the unwary about your continuous opposition to the scriptures and historical teachings of the church. Maybe the banner could be something like “intoxicated by higher textual criticism”, or something like that.
Study Deuteronomy 19:15-21, from the Jewish perspective, to include the Hebrew. I think that answers your question. But Paul is teaching that a woman should not be a witness and judge prophecy, though she can prophesy. But we know you only like parts of what Paul teaches... and the rest you write that he is wrong, or it is corrupted, or someone else wrote , or it's myth, or something - anything but follow it.
Beware of those who are most certain that their understanding of what is written in the law is right. They once ignorantly got The Lord who disagreed with their interpretation of GOD'S LAW, nailed to a piece of wood, to die. Liking your own understanding of ALL the written law, does not save you through ignorance, from crucifying Christ, over and over again. .
That is your opinion. There is no creedal requirement to take such things literally, and no objective basis to treat them as such. Even C.S. Lewis recognized that: A definition of "Anglican" or "orthodoxy" that would place C.S. Lewis beyond the pale is a definition I have no reason to take seriously, and no interest in fulfilling.
Yeah, it actually is. A person cannot simultaneously “not speak in church” but also “wear head coverings while speaking in church.” That’s why the question of Paul’s meaning is debated.