If we just read the Bible, not knowing who each book is addressed to, and what the culture was at the time, we can come away with some wrong, and wonky ideas, such as: polygamy, snake handling, patriarchy, etc. When we apply the culture, time and audience, things make more sense, and we start to easily discern between Scriptural description, versus Scriptural prescription. There is one more thing we need to add to this list, to really see the Scriptures clearly, and that is - What literary style is the writer using, and in which parts of the book?
Most of the time we just automatically pick up the literary style, and get the general gist, and therefore don't need to label which style said passage is in, because it's already familiar to us, because we use the same styles in our communications. However, there is a style that we don't generally use very often, but which was heavily used, especially in the New Testament Pauline Epistles, and that is the literary device known as "Diatribe Style."
Historical Pauline Diatribe style was obvious to the original recipients of the epistles, and even to many generations after that, but to our generation, it can be hard to notice and recognize, because most of us no longer speak or write using that literary device. A Scriptural Diatribe Style is when the author states something they disagree with or want to further expound on, such as quoting those they are addressing, or quoting a known poet, philosopher, teacher, or cultural law. Often we can recognize when Paul was writing in a Diatribe Style, because in many cases he will say one thing, and then say the opposite. For example:
--“All things are permitted for me,” but not
all things are beneficial. “All things are permitted for me,” but I will
not be dominated by anything. “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,” and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for
sexual immorality but for the Lord and the Lord for the body.-- 1 Corinthians 6:12-13 NRSVue
Many Bible translations contain the quotes in the above passage, but this is largely agreed upon to be a Pauline Diatribe Style. Paul here is quoting someone who teaches "all things are permitted for me." He then responds not a direct opposite, but that that teaching was incorrect, as he says "but not all things are beneficial." He quotes the same person again - "all things are permitted for me," and then expounds more on his correction of this incorrect teaching, by stating "but I will not be dominated by anything."
He then quotes someone who taught "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food," and he points out in his response - "and God will destroy both one and the other."
Sometimes Paul may say something along the lines of "you said," but most of the time, he does not tell the reader when he is quoting someone, because the slogans he quotes were so well known to the original recipients that it would have been a redundancy to do such. (Some Bible translations will add "you said," or similar, to help us see the diatribe in some of the cases.)
As we unearth more and more ancient writings, we see more slogans and quotes that Paul used in his Literary Diatribes, such as the following:
--Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” Sober up, as you rightly ought to, and sin no more, for some people have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.-- 1 Corinthians 15:33 NRSVue
Many Bible translations don't have the quoted section above in quotes, but now more and more Bible versions are rightly adding the quotes, as we now know the source who said what's in the above quotes. "Bad company ruins good morals" is Paul quoting the then-famous Greek poet named Menander.
While the above is more of a slogan than a diatribe, I included it here, because the larger picture is that we need to recognize when Paul is quoting someone, or is stating his own words. For example, some cults have the false belief that "Christians" can get baptized in the name of a dead loved one, and they think this may posthumously save that dead one from hell. This incorrect doctrine is derived from the following:
--Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour?-- 1 Corinthians 15:29-30
Is the above a diatribe or a slogan? It is neither, but I included it here to show you how important pronoun antecedents are in the Bible in order for one to arrive at the proper conclusion. Paul here is not saying that Christians were receiving baptism on behalf of the dead. He is referring to how even certain people of other religions believe in resurrection, else they wouldn't be baptizing themselves on behalf of the dead - even though that does nothing, in actuality.
We know this is the case, because Paul refers to "those people" in verse 29 - meaning not Christians, and then talks of "ourselves" in verse 30 - which are the Christians.
Often in some of the Pauline epistles, especially in 1 Corinthians, it appears that Paul states one doctrinal thing, and then says the exact opposite. This rattles and confuses us, and leads to some denominations believing one side, while explaining away the other side.
An example of this is the following:
--"In your congregations" you write, "as in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. On the contrary let them be subordinate, as also says the law. And if they want to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." What, was it from you that the word of God went forth, or to you only did it come?-- 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 -1924 Montgomery Translation
Did you notice the quotation marks in the above? Most Bible translations don't include these quotation marks, but the above Montgomery Translation does. This is because the above verses are a classic Diatribe Style. This is like how some Bible versions will have the slogan in the earlier quoted 1 Corinthians 15:33 in quotation marks and other translations won't, yet it's a quotation, none-the-less.
Like with the quotation in 1 Corinthians 15:33 being found through ancient writing to be from the Greek poet Menander, we also know who originated the quotation in the above 1 Corinthians 14:33-34. This is quoting Cato the Elder, as recorded by Livy. Cato and his contemporaries were having issue with women starting to make political statements and trying to change the culture. There was a law that was put in place, which had stated that women had certain public and wealth restrictions. While the law was being repealed, Cato fiercely fought for that law, trying to keep it in place. This is the "law" that is referred to in the above Scripture passage. The women were being told to stay quiet outside of their homes, and that if they had questions, to wait to ask their husbands back at home.
The Corinthian church had picked up on this then well-known teaching of Cato the Elder, and was trying to apply it to the church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 isn't Paul prohibiting women from speaking in the church. Else, he'd be contradicting himself, as he teaches that women speak, pray, prophesy, teach, etc in the church, in such places as 1 Corinthians 11:5, 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 and 27-30, 1 Corinthians 14:1, 31 and 39, Galatians 3:27-28, etc. Paul here is quoting what the Corinthian church was teaching, based off of Livy's record from Cato the Elder. In 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, Paul is defending women speaking in the church. He quotes the Corinthian church, where they say "...let the women keep silence in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. On the contrary let them be subordinate, as also says the law. And if they want to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." Paul then responds to that by saying "What, was it from you that the word of God went forth, or to you only did it come?" He then says in verse 39 - "So, my brothers and sisters, strive to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues." (NRSVue)
Lest you think 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 being a Diatribe Style is a new concept, it is not. The Montgomery Translation has the quotes in the proper places in those verses, and the Montgomery Bible Translation was translated in 1924.
Perhaps now, if you are a patriarchalist, you are screaming (hopefully only in your mind) 1 Timothy 2:12!
That, my friend, is not a diatribe style, as you may be rightly guessing, however it falls under culture and who 1 Timothy was written to. If you read that verse directly in the Greek, you see that the "quiet" that the women were supposed to be was not cessation of speech, but to be peaceful and calm. You'll also see that it's not saying that women can't teach men. It's literally saying from the Greek that wives must not spiritually murder their husbands, as Eve did Adam (in context with the verses that follow verse 12).
Sit down and read all of 1 and 2 Timothy in one reading - they're not that long. Did you notice that a major theme in those two epistles is that of stopping false teachings in the church in Ephesus? (That's where Timothy was.) If women weren't allowed to teach men, then what of the woman Prisca/Priscilla, who taught Apollo, who was a male preacher in Ephesus, as recorded in the book of Acts. Paul gives Prisca accolades, not a rebuke. The stipulation in 1 Timothy 2:12 was specifically for the church in Ephesus at that time, that the women who were unlearned in the Scriptures (yet were generally very learned in what's now known as modern Wicca) were not to influence and spiritually mislead their husbands, as Eve did Adam.
How does this apply today? It simply means - don't mislead people away from Christ. Period.
Back on the topic of Diatribe Style, you may be wondering how to recognize a Diatribe Style on your own, since Bible translations are inconsistent in pointing them out, and even when a Bible version puts quotes in for one diatribe, they don't put quotes in the the next one, etc. The answer is not profound, but rather obvious when you think it through to its conclusion: We'll often automatically pick up on the simple diatribes without having a problem, but the ones we are unsure of, are usually the ones that look like Paul is contradicting himself.
Here's an example of what looks like Paul is contradicting Himself, but it is likely a Diatribe Style:
--4 "Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head shames his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled shames her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair, but if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God, but woman is the reflection of man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman but woman for the sake of man." 10 For this reason a woman ought to have authority over her head: because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, but all things come from God.-- 1 Corinthians 11:4-12 NRSVue The quotation marks and colon in red are my additions.
Notice that verses 4-9 seem to be saying that women have to cover their heads, because men are the image and reflection of God, but women are just the reflection of man, and that woman was made from and for man. And then, in verses 10-12, we see what seems to be the opposite - woman's head is covered symbolically via her having authority over her own head, and the given reason is 'because of the angels.' 'Because of the angels' is referring to what Paul mentioned earlier in 6:3, which teaches that all Christians will judge angels in the future. The above verse 10 is Paul pointing out that women have authority over themselves, just as men do. As women, along with men, will be equally judging the angels in the future. Then in verses 11+ Paul points out mutuality, stating that men and women are not independent of one another, and one woman came from one man (Eve from Adam) but since then, ALL men have come through women, but that it is irrelevant who came from who, because both genders came directly from God - thus confirming what Genesis teaches - that both men and women are created by God, in the image of God.
Some people will point to 1 Corinthians 11:3, which states the following:
--But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.--
While the above verse 3 isn't a diatribe, it is somewhat cultural. In this case, it's important that we don't put a modern meaning to a symbolic word that had an entirely different meaning to the original recipients. The word I'm referring to here is the symbolic use of "head." Today, symbolic "head" usually means authority - for example, someone may be the "head of the finance department." That's the leader, or the one in authority. That's NOT what symbolic "head" meant to the original recipients. In the Koine Greek at that time, symbolic "head" meant source - where something came from. This is why we see in verse 12 Paul stipulating how the source of both men and women is God. The only place in this chapter where we have the word "authority," is in verse 10, where it states that women have authority over their own heads. The 2011 NIV translates this the best from the Greek:
--It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head: because of the angels.-- NIV 2011 The colon in red is mine.
In conclusion, I hope you can see my point in this treatise, that we must interpret Scripture how the original recipients understood it. If we don't, we can have wrong doctrines; many of which oppress people. The Southern Baptist denomination being a case in point: The Southern Baptists, as opposed to the Northern Baptists, used to defend slavery. Now they don't, however as of around 1998, the Southern Baptists use the same scriptures that they used to use to defend slavery, to defend their wrong patriarchal view, that women aren't allowed to teach men, have authority over men, or be pastors.
Yet, pre-1998, many Southern Baptists were rightly mutualists, as the Bible teaches. For example:
--As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.-- Galatians 3:27-28 NRSVue
--For the wife does not
have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise, the
husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.-- 1 Corinthians 7:4 NRSVue
--For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, but all things come from God.-- 1 Corinthians 11:12 NRSVue
--being subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.-- Ephesians 5:21 NRSVue
--Wives, likewise, submit to
your own husbands. Do this so that even if some of them refuse to
believe the word, they may be won without a word by their wives’ way of
life.--- Husbands, likewise, submit
by living with your wife in ways that honor her, knowing that she is
the weaker partner. Honor her all the more, as she is also a coheir of
the gracious care of life. Do this so that your prayers won’t be
hindered.--- 1 Peter 3:1 and 7 CEB
