Martian Astronomer

Neglecting any question over authorship, I always thought that this section was a little bit odd with regards to the "Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty" section. This is one passage that seems to be a little bit at odds with the conventional evangelical "personal relationship with Jesus" interpretation. I don't think I've ever heard a sermon about how women are actually saved by being a good Christian stepford wife.

andrewcriddle

I have no doubt that Paul regarded the core of his message as absolutely authoritative.

This thread IIUC is about whether this fully authoritative status was intended to apply to everything in Paul's letters.

Andrew Criddle

Flagg

On 1 Galatians, isn't it funny how Paul, who spent years roaming around with Church leadership and direct witnesses of Christ (including Peter, the rock of the church), reveals here that he's rejected every last bit of what he's heard for an entirely knew routine that Christ Himself supposedly dictated to him?

In the whole of Paul's writing, he never once uses Christ's authority on anything. Not a quote, not an indirect quote, not a reference at all to what Christ did in his life, even when it should have been of crucial benefit to do so. Why?

DCHindley

Andrew,

The OP asks a two part question: "[1] Did Paul ever indicate that he was only giving his personal opinions on proper Christian practice and were his letters intended for specific churches at specific times? [2] If so, what is the justification of the various churches in treating his opinions as theology?"

The citation I gave was to show how how his "opinions" became theology (#2 above). "If God said it [through Paul] then I believe it!" It is a bit simplistic, but that is how most US "evangelical" denominations (most Baptist, most Pentecostal churches, most "Independent" churches, most conservative "mainstream" Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, and any church that identifies with Christian fundamentalism or considers itself "Bible based."

Regarding question #1, you had already correctly cited 1 Corinthians Chapter 7, which is all about sexual relations and marriage, where Paul gives several statements, some of which he gives the authority of "the Lord" and some which he expresses as opinions, although he believes he has "the spirit of God" backing him there.

1 Corinthians 7:6 6 But I speak this by permission [SUGGNWMHN, a concession or accommodation with someone else's position], and not of commandment [EPITAGHN].

1 Corinthians 7:10 10 And unto the married I command [PARAGGELLW, a command or charge], yet not I, but the Lord

1 Corinthians 7:12 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord

1 Corinthians 7:25 25 Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command [EPITAGHN] of (the) Lord, but I give my opinion [GNWMHN] as one who by (the) Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

1 Corinthians 7:40 40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment [GNWMHN]: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Assuming this is from his pen Paul seems here to offer authoritative commandments (expressed by the noun EPITAGH or verb PARAGGELLW) grounded in the authority of either "the Lord" or God himself, and also his own opinions (expressed by some variation of the noun GNWMH).

DCH

PS: Of these, excepting 7:40, I think only possibly 7:25 is authentic, as the rest of them utilize KURIOS with the definite article (the Lord [Jesus/Christ]) , which I believe is one of the two primary characteristics of my hypothetical editor/redactor. Vs 7:40, while it agrees to an extent with the opinions of my hypothetical editor/redactor (this editor/redactor frequently disagreed with Paul on issues regarding the relation between the sexes, so much so that it is the redactor, comes across as a misogynistic son of a gun in comparison), could be authentic although it uses an anarthrous QEOS (which is usually a characteristic of my hypothetical editor/redactor), but giving the sense "divine spirit". Vs 40 is coupled with 7:39 where EV KURIWi (an anarthrous KURIOS, which I elsewhere identify as a characteristic of the original author "Paul" where it serves as a circumlocution for "Yahweh") is found.

aa5874

And Paul's authority even extended over heavenly bodies, he was like Jesus on earth.

Galations 1.8 Paul was like a God on earth, his words cannot be retracted or nullified once he has spoken, not even by Paul himself. Paul was inerrant.

Newfie

I got the impression that what Ira Levin intended with the Stepford Wives was a criticism of the 50's "perfect homemaker" model of women's roles. Incidentally, many women who were girls in the 50's seem to have embraced the image and grew up to become current First Ladies and the wives of evangelical leaders. Their husbands, nostalgic for their mothers perhaps, also seem to embrace the "traditional" 50's always-look-perfect, vacuuming-in-stilettos, image of mother and wife. I think that they transposed this image with the biblical ideal of women's roles, instead of seeing it the other way around.

You are right that the "Yet woman will be saved ..." bit seems rather off. If Christ was returning any day, what of the women who were not yet mothers? Still, without the "personal relationship with Jesus" being extended to women in the various congregations how would most of the work of the church get done? Despite the male leadership women are the driving force in the churches, wouldn't you agree?

bacht

The letters tells us that Paul believed the end was near. His instructions about conduct were meant to be temporary, until the coming of Christ when all human distinctions and hierarchy would become irrelevant.

The other point is that the women Paul mentions may have been financial patrons; he reminds his readers often about his own poverty. He may have been "inferior" to these women by economic standards.

Newfie

As someone who has spent a bit of time hanging around carpenters (Note how I tend to disappear from this board during the weekends) might I also note that the talk sometimes drifts into the philosophical during the (frequent) down times. It wouldn't surprise me if the profession wasn't much different thousands of years ago, and that a certain Middle-Eastern builder would be rather shocked to learn that his comments were still being debated today.

I'm not sure about IIDB debate threads being canonized, but I wouldn't bet against the works of many modern-day Christian writers like Billy Graham, Rick Warren, and T. D. Jakes being made more officially recognized as "God's Word" sometime in the future. Who knows? I mean, if the creations of L. Ron can be recognized as one group's canon who is to say where the works of other Sci-Fi writers will be in a hundred years. I understand that there are already "churches" dedicated to Klingon and Jedi-based faiths. Perhaps our great-grandchildren will refigure Jesus with a lightsabre. All things are possible ... with religion.

bacht

If we're talking about the period before the fall of the temple, there probably wasn't much in the way of church life to speak of. Jewish-Christians may still have been attending synagogues as well as Xtian meetings. The focus apparently was on the coming of the messiah, so the idea of creating a new institution probably didn't come until later.

Paul was establishing Christian communities or encouraging existing ones, but I'm guessing the word "church" before 70 was more likely to mean an informal gathering in a private home.

You seem fixed on the "oppressive" nature of social organization in these early Christian groups. Men had been controlling public institutions since the beginning of urban life three thousand years before. Why should these 1st C people have considered any other approach? How would ordinary women have had the time to be involved in leadership? How many 1st C women were even literate?

Ben C Smith

Out of curiosity, would the intermingling of arthrous and anarthrous forms of this term be an indicator of layers in other texts, as well? Compare James 4.10 and 4.15, for example.

Ben.