Women's Role

[OBW]

For example, Paul's instructions for women to be silent in the Gentile church of Corinth comes from the Jewish temple system which limited the role of women.This is your presumption. The amount of "customs" that were decidedly not-Jewish are noteworthy and make a general reference that Paul was creating churches with Jewish customs in the Gentile world.

Besides, when discussing some of his "this way" kind of teachings, he stopped short and declared that there is no such custom in the churches.

So Jesus, and Paul, were busy throwing off the forms and customs . . . . except for assembly boundaries and what to do with those second-class women.

For a group that claims no more law, you sure have a lot of laws.

[awareness]

For a group that claims no more law, you sure have a lot of laws.
Yeah, lots of New Testament laws added to the Old Testament laws.

So why Christianity? The church could have stayed Jewish, with new and improved laws ; Judaism 2.0. That's what we've got today.

And we want to treat woman with attitudes that come from the Stone Age, transferred up thru the Iron age, and into the New Testament age.

When are we ever going to evolve out of the ancient more primitive days & ways? The Bible is Canonized/fixed, so I guess never.

[OBW]

The Bible is Canonized/fixed . . . .And for so many people that is entirely true.

And as far as the underlying text is concerned, it IS entirely true.

The problem is what we do with it. We are ready to make all kinds of changes to our understanding of it when they suit us, but are quick to insist that the inerrant word of God never changes if it is something we don't want changed.

And we can have either without changing any of the text. It is all about what we do with it.

Reminds me of an old joke . . . .

Q: What's the difference between unclear thinking and nuclear thinking?

A: It is a matter of how you use the UN.

And what nobody seems to notice that neither kind of thinking is good. (And I am not trying to slam the UN, though that may not be a bad idea at times.)

The whole dispensational theology is less than 200 years old. But nothing should change. Truth be told, there is much that should change. And none of it requires upending the Bible in any way. Just the dogmas that we have built around it.

[Evangelical]

This is your presumption. The amount of "customs" that were decidedly not-Jewish are noteworthy and make a general reference that Paul was creating churches with Jewish customs in the Gentile world.

Besides, when discussing some of his "this way" kind of teachings, he stopped short and declared that there is no such custom in the churches.

So Jesus, and Paul, were busy throwing off the forms and customs . . . . except for assembly boundaries and what to do with those second-class women.

For a group that claims no more law, you sure have a lot of laws.

If you are referring to 1 Corinthians 11:16:
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.

, your interpretation is wrong

Ellicott:

The argument, and the appeal to their own good sense having been completed, the Apostle now adds that if, after all, some one continues to argue the matter captiously, and is not satisfied with the reason given, the answer to such a one must be simply—We, the Apostles and the churches of God, have no such custom as that women should pray and teach with uncovered head.


If we want to get technical and look at the Greek, the verse is related to this verse:

1 Cor 11:2 Now I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Paul was delivering ordinances, laws, if you like to the churches. One of them was head coverings. This law was applied to all the churches of God (1 Corinthians 11:16).

The contentious ones would be those who disagree with Paul's instructions regarding women and head coverings.

Gill:

But if any man seem to be contentious,.... That is, if anyone will not be satisfied with reasons given, for men's praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered, and women's praying and prophesying with their heads covered; but will go on to raise objections, and continue carping and cavilling, ..

[OBW]

You are seeking more laws than that of righteousness Remember that no such law was spoken by Christ. Because of that, almost any additional burden of rules apparently applied by Paul has to be viewed as contextual rather than general.

And this is one of the errors of evangelicalism. They hear Paul before they hear Christ. They even override Christ with Paul. There is presently a backlash against what might be called a cult of Paul. Some went so far as to simply ignore him. That is too far. But he needs to be understood in both the context of each letter, and in the general context of his part in the NT "story." In the general context, he is not primary. That is the role of the gospels as they tell of the words and works of God trough the Son, Jesus Christ. In the same way that the Jews consider there to be the law and the prophets, then commentary, it is somewhat the same for the NT.

There are the gospels, and there is commentary. That does not mean that the commentary is not scripture. But its part is secondary to the core. The heart of the divine revelation is not Paul or any of his writings. It is the gospels. All these commentators that you mention, including those at prestigious seminaries, are busy playing modern rabbi, trying to read between the lines to force rule upon rule out of what was written. Just like Lee, at least part of most commentary is based upon a declaration that something must mean more than it says. Always looking for something not there.

At least they are not busy dragging ridiculous overlays around to turn scripture into "flesh" like Lee did. But that does not make their personal conclusions correct, even if based on the personal conclusion of someone before them. Just like you said "Paul was delivering ordinances, laws, if you like to the churches" — something implied but not evident from the text — they have made grand declarations that ignore the purpose of a particular writing. If all these letters were to provide general rules to all the churches, then Paul failed. Despite the fact of a few travelling around, churches from Rome to Galatia did not have access to all other letters written within that broad area. It was beyond what they considered the likely span before the return of Christ that they made their way around. If he wanted to detail general rules, he would have written a NT version of Leviticus. But he did not. And he did not speak of everything in the "same way." In one place it was freedom to eat, and in another it was wisdom to not eat so as to protect the faith of others.

We treat the MT as if it is a bunch of pastoral teaching by Jesus but the rulemaking was left to Paul. So we ignore the pastoral and dig through the law.

The law that was to be written on the hearts, not written down and commented on ad nauseam. But that is how these commentators, and you, treat the writings of Paul. As the extra law added after the resurrection to be a stumbling block for everyone.

I know that all of this is lost on you. You will come back with yet another proof text claiming that it makes all your rules iron-clad.

Reminds me of the Pope fighting against Luther's points.

[Evangelical]

The problem for you is that the commentaries are not "looking for more than is there". That would be people like Jane etc. The commentaries are often just stating the most obvious, plain and correct reading of the text. What's the chances that they all are being "modern rabbis"? They are all independent commentaries I believe, by different people in different times, yet they generally agree, and on this matter they agree.

You must wish so bad that they would have said like Jane (paraphrased) "the translators had male bias and therefore they are lemon passages that have to be de-lemonised by changing this verse adding a question mark here and there, and I'm not an expert but I hope the experts will fix these verses up that don't agree with my view". That approach is "looking for more than is there".

Then you would be the one able to quote bible commentaries to support your view, not me.

I don't know what you hope to accomplish by trying to make this about Paul versus Christ or the gospels versus Paul's letters. That is not a wise thing to do. Paul as Christ's apostle was doing and writing what Christ told him to do and say. There should be no question that Paul's commands to the church are Christ's commands. The Christ in the gospels is the same Christ speaking through Paul in his letters.