Paul Was a Male Chauvanist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHRISTINE77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CHRISTINE77

Guest
This is from Timothy 2:9-2:15

9
Similarly, (too,) women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes,
10
but rather, as befits women who profess reverence for God, with good deeds.
11
A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.
12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. 4 She must be quiet.
13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14
Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
15
But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

In this passage, it seems that Paul did not want women to have any sort of authority, but to be completely submissive to men. What do you think?
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
This is from Timothy 2:9-2:15

9
Similarly, (too,) women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes,
10
but rather, as befits women who profess reverence for God, with good deeds.
11
A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.
12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. 4 She must be quiet.
13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14
Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
15
But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

In this passage, it seems that Paul did not want women to have any sort of authority, but to be completely submissive to men. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Christine,

The title of this thread is very inappropriate and Paul was not a Male shauvinist

From the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 12. St. Paul only means in public. See note on ver. 11. of the next chapter. It would appear from this regulation of the apostle, as well as from the writings of the earliest fathers, that the practice and condemnation of women interfering at all in spiritual affairs, in not new. Tertullian says: We do not permit a woman to teach, to baptize, or to arrogate to herself any part of the duty which belongs to man. (De Veland. Virg. cap. 9.) — The woman has tried once to teach, when she persuaded Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, and has wofully failed. Let her now be content to remain in silence, and subjection to man; (St. Chrysostom on this place) as appears also from the order of the creation. See ver. 13. Seduction began with Eve, a subject of profound humiliation for women; but this ought not to deprive them of confidence in God’s mercy, nor take from them the hope of salvation. (Bible de Vence)

Ver. 13-14. Adam was first formed…and was not seduced. That is, was not at least seduced first, as the woman. (Witham)

Ver. 15. She shall be saved by bearing children, &c. and performing other duties of a wife, with a due submission to her husband, taking care to serve God, and bring up her children in the faith of Christ, in piety, &c. (Witham) — This would perhaps be more properly rendered, from the Greek, by the bringing up of her children in faith, charity, and holiness. This is the duty of the woman; upon the faithful discharge or neglect of which she must expect her salvation, or reprobation, to hang. Thus repairing the evil which the first of all women brought upon man, by seducing him to evil. (Bible de Vence)
 
Paul, and the Christian Church, gave women more respect and freedom than any other religion in the world, from my opinion. We must remember (or learn) the culture that Paul was writing in to appreciate how elevated women were in the New Church.
 
NotWorthy said:
Paul, and the Christian Church, gave women more respect and freedom than any other religion in the world, from my opinion. We must remember (or learn) the culture that Paul was writing in to appreciate how elevated women were in the New Church.
Click to expand...
I’m not making a value judgment here, just pointing out the facts, but this is a misleading claim. This may have been true in Jewish culture where women fell right between dogs and gentiles on the scale of importance, but Greeks and Romans didn’t have such restrictions or necessariliy negative views of women, although admittedly, this would have varied from region to region.
 
ckempston said:
I’m not making a value judgment here, just pointing out the facts, but this is a misleading claim. This may have been true in Jewish culture where women fell right between dogs and gentiles on the scale of importance, but Greeks and Romans didn’t have such restrictions or necessariliy negative views of women, although admittedly, this would have varied from region to region.
Click to expand...
I wonder why they couldn’t braid their hair. What would be immodest about braided hair?
 
ckempston said:
I’m not making a value judgment here, just pointing out the facts, but this is a misleading claim. This may have been true in Jewish culture where women fell right between dogs and gentiles on the scale of importance, but Greeks and Romans didn’t have such restrictions or necessariliy negative views of women, although admittedly, this would have varied from region to region.
Click to expand...
No, I think you’re wrong on this. I’ll look up where I recently read this. Women typically couldn’t read (Roman and Greek culture). The women priestesses were more often than not, Temple prostitutes.

I’ll try and recall where I read this (either Ignatius or Navarre) and come back with some facts.
 
NotWorthy said:
No, I think you’re wrong on this. I’ll look up where I recently read this. Women typically couldn’t read (Roman and Greek culture). The women priestesses were more often than not, Temple prostitutes.

I’ll try and recall where I read this (either Ignatius or Navarre) and come back with some facts.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, Jesus treated women as he treated men. Note Martha, and Mary Magdelene. I think the restrictions on women came later. Although, I will agree that Paul did have some good women friends such as Phoebe and Lydia. Truthfully, I don’t think he was a chauvanist, and maybe this letter to Timothy isn’t even authentically Paul’s. It’s just troubling because it seems to contradict the teachings of Christ. I think the Church grew more an more chauvanistic as time went on. In Jesus and Paul’s time I think women actually had more active and equal roles.
 
CWBetts said:
A class I took on the early Roman Empire
Click to expand...
I just looked it up, and my source says that Paul was referring to the style in Rome where women would braid their hair elaborately. Nothing about prostitutes. Supposedly his message was that women should not spend lavishly on adornment and hairstyles, but be more modest in their needs, and give the rest to the Church.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
On the other hand, Jesus treated women as he treated men. Note Martha, and Mary Magdelene. I think the restrictions on women came later. Although, I will agree that Paul did have some good women friends such as Phoebe and Lydia. Truthfully, I don’t think he was a chauvanist, and maybe this letter to Timothy isn’t even authentically Paul’s. It’s just troubling because it seems to contradict the teachings of Christ. I think the Church grew more an more chauvanistic as time went on. In Jesus and Paul’s time I think women actually had more active and equal roles.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this? I’m at a loss.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
I just looked it up, and my source says that Paul was referring to the style in Rome where women would braid their hair elaborately. Nothing about prostitutes. Supposedly his message was that women should not spend lavishly on adornment and hairstyles, but be more modest in their needs, and give the rest to the Church.
Click to expand...
I will trust a professor who has made a career out of women’s history in Europe over a google search.
 
NotWorthy said:
No, I think you’re wrong on this. I’ll look up where I recently read this. Women typically couldn’t read (Roman and Greek culture). The women priestesses were more often than not, Temple prostitutes.

I’ll try and recall where I read this (either Ignatius or Navarre) and come back with some facts.
Click to expand...
Good luck. You will undoubtedly find that women were seen by Romans exactly as Paul said they should be treated: they were under the authority of a man, though they had extensive rights. They were the “weaker” sex, and could not generally have authority over a man. This had some prominent exceptions, of course, with some matriarchs, rich women (that Paul even speaks of in his letters), empresses (or rather mothers of young emperors), and, as I said, the treatment of women would vary from region to region.

As much as people like to take this common, simplistic view of women in Greek and Roman culture, and think of the Roman culture as homogeneous, this was not the case. Paul did not perform some sweeping overhaul of women’s rights throughout Christianity.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
On the other hand, Jesus treated women as he treated men. Note Martha, and Mary Magdelene. I think the restrictions on women came later. Although, I will agree that Paul did have some good women friends such as Phoebe and Lydia. Truthfully, I don’t think he was a chauvanist, and maybe this letter to Timothy isn’t even authentically Paul’s. It’s just troubling because it seems to contradict the teachings of Christ. I think the Church grew more an more chauvanistic as time went on. In Jesus and Paul’s time I think women actually had more active and equal roles.
Click to expand...
Hi Christine:)
How do the verses in question contradict the teachings of Christ? How is the church chauvanistic? How were men and woman’s roles more equal during the time of St. Paul?
 
Lisa44 said:
Hi Christine:)
How do the verses in question contradict the teachings of Christ? How is the church chauvanistic? How were men and woman’s roles more equal during the time of St. Paul?
Click to expand...
Jesus said nothing about women being submissive to men. The Catholic Church is under the authority of men. Only men can hold the priesthood.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
On the other hand, Jesus treated women as he treated men. Note Martha, and Mary Magdelene. I think the restrictions on women came later. Although, I will agree that Paul did have some good women friends such as Phoebe and Lydia. Truthfully, I don’t think he was a chauvanist, and maybe this letter to Timothy isn’t even authentically Paul’s. It’s just troubling because it seems to contradict the teachings of Christ. I think the Church grew more an more chauvanistic as time went on. In Jesus and Paul’s time I think women actually had more active and equal roles.
Click to expand...
Your comments appear to be a reflection of radical feminist ideas and not those of the Bible. You question the authenticity of the letter to Timothy. This is not the Church’s teaching. Issues of fairness have to be looked at from God’s perspective, not man’s perspective.

The man and the woman each have roles to play that are defined by nature and by God. These roles are set, although not everyone is called to marriage which Jesus defines as a gift. In both the Old and New Testament, we learn that God is not a respecter of persons: man, woman, king or beggar, we all have dignity and worth in the eyes of God.

Jesus is the God of the Old Testament as well as the New. He refers to His Father and He appears on earth as a man. Men are not women and women are not men.

Peace,
Ed
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Jesus said nothing about women being submissive to men. The Catholic Church is under the authority of men. Only men can hold the priesthood.
Click to expand...
That’s not a contradiction. Just because Jesus didn’t say a thing, doesn’t mean if some Apostle(s) said it that it is a contradiction.
 
Jesus’ attitude and treatment of woman was rather unique.He talked and healed them without regard to their sex. In the culture of that time ( and current in some sects of Judaism) If a female is not your wife or any other close female relative you were forbidden to talk to them or touch them in any manner.Jesus speaking to the woman at the well startled her- she was a Samaritan, of dubious repute and a woman- three reason -Not to speak to her.Yet he did just that.Martha and Mary- he shouldn’t have any relationship with.The woman with the alabaster jar shouldn’t have touched him and He(in the Jewish custom) should have gotten up and left and not have any contact with her. She was a woman- so lord knows if she is unclean.Women’s period and childbearing could make them unclean . the Woman with the issue of blood shouldn’t have reached out to touch him- that was probably one of the reasons she was afraid when Jesus turned and asked "who touched me?"His prayer shawl would have been seen as an extension of Himself -to touch his garment was to touch Him- but he was not angry- didn’t say yuck- even if cultural and religious scruples said He should.
Some people say because of these socio-cultural religious taboos- Jesus wouldn’t have made contact with women so the stories of jesus doing that came from people who didn’t know about Judaism! Nonsense!Jesus didn’t do what everyone else did-because He was unique- the unique son of God!Messiah, SaviourAlso to show us a better way.
One of the reasons He became a target - His disregarding of cultural mores.
I always love how Eve became an excuse for scholars to disrespect women. In the Middle ages the looked at women in a very stilted way- either we were Like BVM or we were eve- a seductress- no happy medium.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Jesus said nothing about women being submissive to men. The Catholic Church is under the authority of men. Only men can hold the priesthood.
Click to expand...
Hi Christine, 🙂

You say that like men are bad or something?

What do you want? Do you want to get rid of male Priests, and celibacy, and have men and women married priests? Then shall the woman priest get a three month leave of absense after she has a baby, and then she can go back to being a Priest, and hire a nanny to raise her child? Or should she have her baby there at Mass and when it cries she can just pick it up while she is performing the Mass?

What is your catholic utopia? Im just curious sinse you think the Catholic church would be better off if it were different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top