Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
According to Wikipedia, basic human rights were recognized in ancient Egypt as early as 725 BC. The first known recording of human rights were inscribed by Cyrus the great in 539 BC.
But I don't see the concept of natural or human rights being promoted in the Bible per se. Rather, the New Testament writers seem to view Jesus's attitude towards women as an expression of his godly loving-kindness. In other words his acceptance of women was seen as a personal virtue that he possessed not as treatment they were entitled to as a right.
Jesus's attitude towards his mother may be relevant here as well. Without a doubt Jesus considered God to be his father. But he rejected Mary as being his mother according to Mark 3:31-35.
Furthermore, according to John 2 when Jesus' mother told him that the wedding party had run out of wine Jesus said to her "Woman what does your concern have to do with me my hour has not yet come" (NKJV). I can see how his openness toward women not withstanding, Jesus' attitude toward his mother in contrast to his exalted view of God as his Father, lends itself to a patriarchal interpretation.
|
What is very telling to me is that the key verse in this debate is Paul's charge in 1Tim 2 --
9 In like manner also that the women in decent deportment and dress adorn themselves with modesty and discretion, not with plaited [hair] and gold, or pearls, or costly clothing,
10 but, what becomes women making profession of the fear of God, by good works.
11 Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection;
12 but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;
If these verses prove the argument that the NT is biased against women then you have proven your case, if they don't, then you have no case because these verses are far and away your best case. So why all the other blather? Why not drill down on these verses, press the issue, and hang your case on these verses?
What is lacking from all of the whiners and bellyachers about this issue is even a modicum of discussion as to the society that the church was living in at the time. Women's rights are not solely a church matter. We know this today. When our army and even our civilians go to a country in the Middle East (or in fact anywhere on the planet) we have to learn and respect the customs. Likewise the church is the embassy of the kingdom of the heavens. Until the kingdom comes we are representatives in a strange land and have to respect the customs of a strange people.
For example, take what Paul says about women's clothing. "Decent deportment", "modesty", "discretion", etc. We say exactly the same thing today when instructing our military, government officials, and even our corporate executives who want to be successful in these countries. Does that mean that the US is biased against women? If it doesn't then it means those who are complaining about Paul are two faced hypocrites. If it does then it means those who are complaining about Paul should be judging themselves rather than him.
Now if the United States, the most powerful nation on Earth, and the nation that countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia do billions of dollars of business with on a daily basis, and a nation critical to their national security, if we have to show this level of respect to these despots then how evil and nasty to complain about a few hundred of the poorest and least respected members of the society also behaving with discretion.
Now Paul also said
"I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man". This therefore is the single quote from the NT on which all claims of misogyny hang. And there is a very clear distinction here with the US. We do have people of authority, women, who do teach and exercise authority over men. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have had to get used to it. This is true, but it was only true when an army was at their gate able to crush them had they not called for our help. The context of Paul's word is
"2 I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made for all men;
2 for kings and all that are in dignity, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all piety and gravity;". He wasn't speaking to Christians in a new land thousands of miles from the existing power structures and religions. We saw very quickly that Christians in the US did not in any way hold to this kind of teaching. Rather he was speaking to Christians in a very hostile environment. An environment where both Roman and Jew wanted them fed to the lions. To ignore that is willful ignorance and demonstrates someone who is giving counsel without knowledge or prudence. If you want to lead a quiet and tranquil life in the Middle East 2,000 years ago then the local people could not fear that you were completely undermining their entire social structure.
What all these complainers miss is the significance of his statement that they
"learn in quietness". Look at the current difficulty with women, girls, trying to go to school in Taliban controlled countries. Step 1 is to allow women to learn. That is what Paul and the NT taught, which was a radical departure from the local society.
"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." That is human history. That is how women were freed. Paul took the radical step of teaching women the truth in quietness. He had no authority or power to decree their freedom. But "the truth" does. Therefore, as I have said before and human history has confirmed, the NT, the fellowship of the apostles, and primarily the fellowship of the Apostle Paul, has been critical to advancing women's rights. This is evidenced in the fact that throughout the last 2,000 years women have been the overwhelming majority of church members.