Biblical Misogyny?

Is misogyny a biblical requirement for churches, or are modern preachers missing the cultural context of the Apostle Paul’s instructions? In Paul’s instructions about women, he says, “I do not allow” instead of, “God does not allow.” So, can we deduce a limit to Paul’s restrictions on women? When debating this issue, it is too […]

The post Biblical Misogyny? appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Is misogyny a biblical requirement for churches, or are modern preachers missing the cultural context of the Apostle Paul’s instructions?

In Paul’s instructions about women, he says, “I do not allow” instead of, “God does not allow.” So, can we deduce a limit to Paul’s restrictions on women?

When debating this issue, it is too easy for one to overlook the cultural context of Paul’s statements. Not only did Paul have to deal with the cultural expectations of the Jewish religious leaders, he also had to deal with the cultural expectations of the traditional Greek society as well as the expectations of Roman society. To quote historian and archaelologist Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, “We are not dealing with a single, monolithic Roman world but one differentiated through time, across religion and across social divides.” [Wallace-Hadrill, A.F. (1994). Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton University Press.]

As one academian puts it:

From the PBS.org series The Roman Empire in the First Century:

“Not much information exists about Roman women in the first century. Women were not allowed to be active in politics, so nobody wrote about them. Neither were they taught how to write, so they could not tell their own stories.

We do know a little, however. Unlike society in ancient Egypt, Rome did not regard women as equal to men before the law. They received only a basic education, if any at all, and were subject to the authority of a man. Traditionally, this was their father before marriage. At that point, authority switched to their husband, who also had the legal rights over their children.”

Judaism historian Tal Ilan explains the way that Jewish religious leaders thought about women:

“In post-biblical Jewish antiquity women were not viewed as equal to men or as full Jews. In this, Jews were no different from their various Greco-Roman, Semitic, or Egyptian neighbors. The difference lies in the explanation Jews gave to their views. All Jews of late antiquity considered women’s position in Judaism as determined by the injunctions of the Old Testament. Their subordinate position was viewed as emanating from Eve’s role in the creation narrative, both as created secondary and as guilty of the original sin.

Thus, the second century BCE Palestinian sage Ben Sira bitterly laments women’s role in bringing death to the world, referring to the incident in the Garden of Eden. A Jewish pseudepigraphic composition, usually referred to as the Book of Adam and Eve, greatly elaborates on this theme, constantly reiterating woman’s involvement in man’s fall, her guilt, and his accusations against her. Later midrashic literature continues in the same vein: women are eternally punished for their involvement in the original sin.”

If you think that the biblical authors were never influenced by writings outside of Scripture, then think again. They were. For example, here is Matthew 2:23:

The statement “He will be called a Nazarene” is not in the Tanakh (a.k.a. Old Testament).

The book of Jude also contains a non-scriptural reference:

Was it possible for an Apostle to err on the side of cultural expectations? Yes, of course, as we discover when reading the book of Galatians:

Unlike Peter, Paul had to deal with the legal fallout should the fledgling Church needlessly run afoul of the Roman government. Not only were women in Paul’s day (in general) ill-prepared to teach Scriptures, putting them in authority over men could easily have caused a social uproar that would have brought the might of the Roman government into the situation. The Roman government would likely have punished the fledgling Church for causing the uproar.

Although men and women were spiritual equals in the messianic faith, it was unnecessary back then for women to be given positions of authority. So, Paul had a practical reason to restrict what women could do in the congregations under his authority.

Now, should Paul’s restrictions on women be in effect today? Are we supposed to punish the women who are alive today for something that Eve did? After all, through the prophet Ezekiel, God declares that he does not punish the innocent for the sin of the guilty.

It would be unwise to ignore the cultural context of any Bible verses that we cite. For example, consider what is stated in Joshua 10:12–13:

According to a literal interpretation of Joshua 10:12–13, the Sun circles around the Earth. Yet, we know from astronomy that the Earth rotates on its axis, thus creating the illusion that Sun circles around the Earth. So are we to declare that Joshua 10:12–13 is to be interpreted literally?

Yes, we need to take cultural context into consideration when citing Bible verses, including statements written by the Apostle Paul. In short, Paul lived in a society in which women were chattel, and Paul’s writings reflect that fact. Paul’s goal was to spread the Gospel, not to challenge the social order of his day. Had he done the latter, then he would have caused unnecessary harm to the fledgling Church.

So, is there a way to end the ongoing dispute about the role of women in the universal Church?

In pursuit of an answer, I keep five bits of reality in mind.

First, it is wrong to assume that women are somehow mentally or emotionally inferior to men. No, women aren’t that.

Second, the accuracy of a statement does not depend on the gender of the person who makes it. Logic is gender neutral.

Third, if in doubt about something that is not mandatory, then do not it. The Bible does not mandate that women be given the role of pastor.

Fourth, it is unwise to automatically accept whatever a pastor says even if the pastor is a man. Male clergy aren’t infallible when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Indeed, no man is the final authority on how to correctly interpret the Bible. No group of men or male-led institution is the final authority on how to correctly interpret the Bible.

Fifth, if a man and a woman have a disagreement about how to correctly interpret the Bible, then it is possible for the woman to be right and for the man to be wrong. The women of today aren’t ill-educated like the women of the Apostle Paul’s day.

As I have observed, some men claim to worship Messiah Jesus when they really worship their status as being men. Instead of promoting the Gospel, they promote their ideas of what men are supposed to be like. Masculinity is their real god.

In conclusion, each person has to live with his or her conscience. I do not know of anyone who is legally forced to belong to a church that has female pastors and elders. Where I live, churches are all-volunteer organizations.

Besides, one’s eternal destiny does not depend on who are the leaders of one’s church. Nor does one’s eternal destiny depend on one agreeing with everything that church leaders say.

The post Biblical Misogyny? appeared first on The Moderate Voice.