Were Paul's Views On Women Demeaning?

[Sunstone]

Were Paul's views on women demeaning to women, and by extension to all humans?

Did Paul view women as essentially corrupt morally or spiritually?

Did he view them as intellectually inferior to men?

Was it his goal and intention to subjugate women to men?

Why did he exclude women from the priesthood?

In terms of his views of women, was Paul a man of his times, or hick even for his times in the Grecco Roman Empire?

 

[Sunstone]

Was Paul (to use a technical term here) a "jerk" when it came to women?

More to the point, was he fundamentally unrealistic in his views of women?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Were Paul's views on women demeaning to women, and by extension to all humans?

In his time - of course not. Women had important roles in society, but they were not on the same social level as men. Some women - even in the NT managed households, ran businesses, and were important religious and civil leaders. However, they were not men.

Did Paul view women as essentially corrupt morally or spiritually?

I don't think so.

Did he view them as intellectually inferior to men?

No. Pheobe, a woman, was to read the epistle to the Romans to the church, and in Romans 16 he counted a female apostle as higher than himself.

Was it his goal and intention to subjugate women to men?

Subjugation is not in the text I think. According to David Balch, with whom I agree, the household codes were apologetic in nature. That is, women were to submit to their husbands like the rest of the Greco-Roman world as an apologetic that Chistians did not intend to be socially subversive.

Why did he exclude women from the priesthood?

I don't think that he did. I don't think that Paul wrote the Pastorals, where women are told to be silent.

In terms of his views of women, was Paul a man of his times, or hick even for his times in the Grecco Roman Empire?

Yes.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Was Paul (to use a technical term here) a "jerk" when it came to women?

I don't think so.

More to the point, was he fundamentally unrealistic in his views of women?

He did not follow Plato in thinking that a woman was a mutilated man, inferior in every way. It seems to me that he followed the Stoics with a more equal idea in mind.

 

[Defij]

This is a good topic, and one that I feel passionate about because Paul has gotten such a bad rap for 2000 years as a woman hater/discriminator and much worse! Most of this is found in the Pastoral Letters (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus). At this point in time, pretty much every legit Biblical Scholar would attest that Paul was not the author of the Pastoral Letters. Probably 80% or more believe this. I am in that camp (not that I am an authoritative Biblical Scholar, yet anyways…). But it’s painfully obvious that Paul did not write those letters! And what is even more painfully obvious is that Paul’s theology and ideology towards women was nothing like what is described in the Pastoral Letters!

Let us take a look at Paul’s most important letter (arguably of course), the letter to the church at Rome (Romans). Romans is Paul’s most systematic laying out of the gospel. It is basically a fundraising letter. Paul wants to go to Spain (which at that time was the western most part of the known world) but he needs financial support to do so. So he writes to the Church at Rome and is asking for funds. However, before the Romans just start giving Paul money, they of course want to know what he plans on doing, what his gospel is all about. That is why Romans is so simple in describing the gospel.

Anyways, as we can see, this is a very important letter, arguably Paul’s most important letter. Now who does he entrust with this precious document, to take to the Church in Rome (one quick side note, when you think of “Church” in the first century, do not think of build buildings with pews and such, think of small homes, with maybe 50 people at most in each house, probably smaller in most)? A woman by the name of Phoebe. Romans chapter 16 makes this clear. So what Phoebe would do is go around to these homes (the Church in Rome) and read Paul’s letter, and of course answer questions, basically be Paul’s representative. So much for women being “silent” in the Church eh?! Haha!

More evidence of Paul’s “real” view on the role of women is in 1st Corinthians. It is a woman who brings Paul a report of all that is going on in the city, and prompts Paul to write the letter and she takes it back with her. Paul even refers to women as “co-laborers” (equal partners in spreading the Gospel) and deaconesses. But study this for yourself, I think you’ll be surprised to how Paul really viewed the role of women and how he actually treated them.

 

[Smoke]

I'm no great admirer of Paul, so it might be comfortably easy to blame him for Christian misogyny. But it seems certain that Paul didn't write the Pastorals, and all but certain that the bit in 1 Corinthians about the women being silent in the churches is a later interpolation.

In view of more authentic Pauline statements -- the idea that "there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus," his clear acceptance of women as coworkers and leaders of the churches, and his remarks about his particular women -- it seems likely to me that Paul's views on women were remarkably enlightened, not just for his time, but for ours.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm no great admirer of Paul, so it might be comfortably easy to blame him for Christian misogyny. But it seems certain that Paul didn't write the Pastorals, and all but certain that the bit in 1 Corinthians about the women being silent in the churches is a later interpolation.

In view of more authentic Pauline statements -- the idea that "there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus," his clear acceptance of women as coworkers and leaders of the churches, and his remarks about his particular women -- it seems likely to me that Paul's views on women were remarkably enlightened, not just for his time, but for ours.

I think not. Paul's view reflects a movement in Greco-Roman culture to accept women as business leaders, householders, and leaders of associations. In the Roman period, women were recently able to divorce their husbands, better manage estates, and inherit property. The Stoics had long envisioned a soceity that granted something like equal rights to women, and the Isis cult (albeit with great difficulty) allowed women to freely participate in the religion.

I will grant that the participation in worship in 1 Corinthians is remarkable - it seems that women were fully participating in the cult - perhaps I think because they owned the homes in which worship took place - and likely paid for the burial of members of the church.

 

[Endless]

Regarding the Corinthians, it might be a worthwhile investment to look into the people of that time who Paul was writing to. In particular have a look at the role of women in the Corinthian society and then read the statements of Paul in this light. It helps get the meaning that those reading it would have understood from what Paul wrote.