Where in the Law does it say women should be silent??

[carlos123]

Hi ya all,

I was wondering if ya all could help me do a bit of Biblical research if you will.

Namely I am interested in finding out where in the Law it says that women (I believe married women in context) should be silent in the church in line with what Paul said...


1 Corinthians 14:34
Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted for them to speak; but they are commanded to be obedient, as says the law. 35 (sword:///I%20Corinthians%2014:35) And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Now...PLEASE do not stray into a discussion of what Paul meant! That is NOT what I am interested in researching, at least not here in this thread. I am interest in getting help to find out where in the Law it says something that supports what Paul said.

Anybody?

Carlos

[prophecystudent]

Considering that what Paul said is understood to be rules for the church, and divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost, what more proof do you need?

As far as interpreting what Paul said, it needs no interpretation.

In biblical days (read back then) single women were under the control of their fathers. Thus, if a single woman in church had a question she would ask it of her father.

Fred

[AFinChrist]

Since you wish not to discuss this, I will simply post a book.

Why not Women?

by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton


Women were not educated during that time and had to wait for men (father's and husband's) to explain the sermons to them. That is not the case today. Women are educated and are able to find things out for themselves.

It was a cultural and regional issue.

1Corinthian 14

Orderly Worship

26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=14&version=31#fen-NIV-28701i)] 39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.





Now that you know.....how about sharing with us Why you wish to know this specific passage?

[traderdave]

The Amplified Bible references Gen 3:16 to your Corinthians verse.

Gen 3:16
16 Then he said to the woman, "You will bear children with intense pain and suffering. And though your desire will be for your husband, he will be your master."
NLT

Joel 2:29-29 is relevant to 1Cor 14, and I've included a larger part of the passage to put it in context. But the Joel verse contradicts the thought that women should be absolutely silent in church.

Joel 2:28-29
28 "Then after I have poured out my rains again, I will pour out my Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your old men will dream dreams. Your young men will see visions. 29 In those days, I will pour out my Spirit even on servants, men and women alike.
NLT


1 Cor 14:26-35
26 Well, my brothers and sisters, let's summarize what I am saying. When you meet, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in an unknown language, while another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must be useful to all and build them up in the Lord. 27 No more than two or three should speak in an unknown language. They must speak one at a time, and someone must be ready to interpret what they are saying. 28 But if no one is present who can interpret, they must be silent in your church meeting and speak in tongues to God privately.

29 Let two or three prophesy, and let the others evaluate what is said. 30 But if someone is prophesying and another person receives a revelation from the Lord, the one who is speaking must stop. 31 In this way, all who prophesy will have a turn to speak, one after the other, so that everyone will learn and be encouraged. 32 Remember that people who prophesy are in control of their spirit and can wait their turn. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the other churches.

34 Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. 35 If they have any questions to ask, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.
NLT

The Joel passage says that women will prophesy. Prophesy is done in the church, and it is impossible to keep silent and prophesy at the same time. Either Paul is contradicting the prophet Joel, or greater study is required to fully understand what Paul is saying.

I know that's not exactly what you requested in your OP, but there it is anyway ;).

[AFinChrist]

says that women will prophesy.


Well, the Lord has called Mr. Carlos here to be a Teacher. He is called to the nations.

I pray the Spirit reveals All Truths to you.

[bithiah2]

i was taught that the women were hollering out across the room saying "what does that mean" so Paul told them to ask at home. the men and women were not sitting together in the church, they were separate from one another. and you know women are outspoken so they needed to be quiet.
that is what i was always taught about that.
bithiah2

[freyajem]

Are we to do as was done 2000 years ago? Shall we destroy airplanes, burn our homes, live in stone huts, cover our entire bodies with clothing, even swimming, shall we plant our food, sheer sheep, wear their wool, eat their flesh, burn them for offerings.......
and above all, keep our women silent?

Either our women talk or we revert to 2000 years ago. It is foolish to keep the customs of 2000 years ago when we have progressed in everything else.

The first man to demand a woman be silent must erect a building and an altar according to the 10 or whatever pages of minute calculated measurements. When you have done so, I will be silent. I won't hold my breath waiting.:wave:

[Cris413]

The Amplified Bible references Gen 3:16 to your Corinthians verse.

Gen 3:16
16 Then he said to the woman, "You will bear children with intense pain and suffering. And though your desire will be for your husband, he will be your master."
NLT

Joel 2:29-29 is relevant to 1Cor 14, and I've included a larger part of the passage to put it in context. But the Joel verse contradicts the thought that women should be absolutely silent in church.

Joel 2:28-29
28 "Then after I have poured out my rains again, I will pour out my Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your old men will dream dreams. Your young men will see visions. 29 In those days, I will pour out my Spirit even on servants, men and women alike.
NLT


1 Cor 14:26-35
26 Well, my brothers and sisters, let's summarize what I am saying. When you meet, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in an unknown language, while another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must be useful to all and build them up in the Lord. 27 No more than two or three should speak in an unknown language. They must speak one at a time, and someone must be ready to interpret what they are saying. 28 But if no one is present who can interpret, they must be silent in your church meeting and speak in tongues to God privately.

29 Let two or three prophesy, and let the others evaluate what is said. 30 But if someone is prophesying and another person receives a revelation from the Lord, the one who is speaking must stop. 31 In this way, all who prophesy will have a turn to speak, one after the other, so that everyone will learn and be encouraged. 32 Remember that people who prophesy are in control of their spirit and can wait their turn. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the other churches.

34 Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. 35 If they have any questions to ask, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.
NLT

The Joel passage says that women will prophesy. Prophesy is done in the church, and it is impossible to keep silent and prophesy at the same time. Either Paul is contradicting the prophet Joel, or greater study is required to fully understand what Paul is saying.

I know that's not exactly what you requested in your OP, but there it is anyway ;).

Hi TraderDave, :wave:

Wonderful post. As I read this...the difference that come to mind for me between what Joel and what Paul wrote are the words underlined:

35 If they have any questions to ask, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.


and:

Joel 2:28-29
28 "Then after I have poured out my rains again, I will pour out my Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your old men will dream dreams. Your young men will see visions

This suggests the women in Corinth did not have understanding...therefore were asking questions in an inappropriate manner.

Daughters that prophesy have words of wisdom to offer as revealed to them directly from God. Which should also be done in the orderly fashion Paul defines.

God bless you brother...

Thank you, I was blessed by your post...:amen:



My sincere apologies Carlos for discussing the meaning of Scripture in your thread...it's just rather hard not to... Particularly when meaning is found in the research.

[flyingsum0]

Are we to do as was done 2000 years ago? Shall we destroy airplanes, burn our homes, live in stone huts, cover our entire bodies with clothing, even swimming, shall we plant our food, sheer sheep, wear their wool, eat their flesh, burn them for offerings.......
and above all, keep our women silent?

Either our women talk or we revert to 2000 years ago. It is foolish to keep the customs of 2000 years ago when we have progressed in everything else.

The first man to demand a woman be silent must erect a building and an altar according to the 10 or whatever pages of minute calculated measurements. When you have done so, I will be silent. I won't hold my breath waiting.:wave:

Only if Im allowed to bring a Battle Axe to work...personally being able to walk around with a giant battle axe all day would be enough for me to put up with anything in any era...not having to wear shirt most of teh time would be pretty cool also. Well actually I dont wear a shirt much anyway...

[HypnoToad]

Hi ya all,

I was wondering if ya all could help me do a bit of Biblical research if you will.

Namely I am interested in finding out where in the Law it says that women (I believe married women in context) should be silent in the church in line with what Paul said...

To actually answer the OP, notice that the passage says "be obedient as the law says", not "silent as the law says". Paul is saying that it is the obedience that is specified in the law.

[tturt]

I absolutely love the "Why Not Women?" book. It was a real eye opener - entirely based on scriptures.

[Cris413]

To actually answer the OP, notice that the passage says "be obedient as the law says", not "silent as the law says". Paul is saying that it is the obedience that is specified in the law.

:thumbsup:

[freyajem]

To actually answer the OP, notice that the passage says "be obedient as the law says", not "silent as the law says". Paul is saying that it is the obedience that is specified in the law.

Silent, obedient, what the heck is the difference. A man would have an obedient woman be silent. I do not go with this man the master and women the silent and obedient. That is soooooo antiquated, sooooooooooo 2000 years ago. Most men today don't even want to be master....they want their women to do everything for them and then they go to the bible to put the ones who do the work silent and obedient.

When I find a silent and obedient woman I will let you know. Now don't hold your breath.

[Nurbz]

What about this passage?


1 Timothy 2:11-12: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."


That is soooooo antiquated, sooooooooooo 2000 years ago.
not that I'm suggesting anything, but that statement could be applied to just about anything in the bible

[freyajem]

What about this passage?



not that I'm suggesting anything, but that statement could be applied to just about anything in the bible


Just a question.

Is there anybody here who truly believes that a woman should be silent (in church or otherwise) and obedient to her master, her husband?

[Nurbz]

Just a question.

Is there anybody here who truly believes that a woman should be silent (in church or otherwise) and obedient to her master, her husband?
I'm not saying anything definitively, but I'm 'playing the part' of a stickler you might say, because the notion of homosexuality being a big deal could be considered antiquated as well because it wasn't creating a big family, which was why the puritans outlawed anything but the missionary position since kids were the most important part of farm and colonial life (not that I'm starting a homosexual debate here)

I'm against pick and choosing what parts of the bible are irrelevant while at the same time enforcing other parts because 'the bible says so', so I let people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect others negatively.

I'm not Pat Robertson who says feminism has ruined the family, BUUUUT, I will point out hypocrisy; folks can't get all hardline about gays getting a tax break through monogamy for example but then say women being submissive is antiquated and dismiss the passages.

I hope I'm making sense :scratch:

[freyajem]

I'm not saying anything definitively, but I'm 'playing the part' of a stickler you might say, because the notion of homosexuality being a big deal could be considered antiquated as well because it wasn't creating a big family, which was why the puritans outlawed anything but the missionary position since kids were the most important part of farm and colonial life (not that I'm starting a homosexual debate here)

I'm against pick and choosing what parts of the bible are relevant while at the same time enforcing other parts because 'the bible says so', so I let people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect others negatively.

I'm not Pat Robertson who says feminism has ruined the family, BUUUUT, I will point out hypocrisy; folks can't get all hardline about gays getting a tax break through monogamy for example but then say women being submissive is antiquated and dismiss the passages.

I hope I'm making sense :scratch:

NOPE

As far as I can see, homosexuality and women being silent and obedient to their master have not one iota of anything to do with one another. It is like comparing squash to onions.

Have you noticed that they have taken the obey part out of the marriage vows. As a matter of fact, marriage vows are often written now by the bride and groom. We can't live totally under all the rules of 2000 years ago.

That doesn't mean the bible is wrong. It only means the bible was written according to custom then. And I know what you will say, and if you want to go back 2000 years, I don't mind if you do. But on this particular issue, I feel no need to revert to then.

[Nurbz]

NOPE

As far as I can see, homosexuality and women being silent and obedient to their master have not one iota of anything to do with one another. It is like comparing squash to onions.

Have you noticed that they have taken the obey part out of the marriage vows. As a matter of fact, marriage vows are often written now by the bride and groom. We can't live totally under all the rules of 2000 years ago.

That doesn't mean the bible is wrong. It only means the bible was written according to custom then. And I know what you will say, and if you want to go back 2000 years, I don't mind if you do. But on this particular issue, I feel no need to revert to then.
I think the difference is that the majority can rationalize anything.

[flyingsum0]

Just a question.

Is there anybody here who truly believes that a woman should be silent (in church or otherwise) and obedient to her master, her husband?

Nope...I dont want a woman whos always silent and obidient ...there's a subltle beauty to an intelligent mature argument with one's spouse as long as no one gets hit with large metal objects.

I'm all for following the Bible cause its God's word but in this case I'm just as much in favor of respecting my love for my wife and her status in my life.

We all have ours rights in this world. I have the right to tell her to be silent and/ or obidient just as she has the right to run me over with a 40 ton dump truck.

In my marriage some rights are replaced by compromise. I thank God for that compromise everyday...

[freyajem]

Nope...I dont want a woman whos always silent and obidient ...there's a subltle beauty to an intelligent mature argument with one's spouse as long as no one gets hit with large metal objects.

I'm all for following the Bible cause its God's word but in this case I'm just as much in favor of respecting my love for my wife and her status in my life.

We all have ours rights in this world. I have the right to tell her to be silent and/ or obidient just as she has the right to run me over with a 40 ton dump truck.

In my marriage some rights are replaced by compromise. I thank God for that compromise everyday...

I'd like to have someone to compromise with.:wave:

[Nurbz]

I think we're suppost to change non-faith-critical morality over time, because the bible doesn't spesificly mention that slavery is wrong either and gives instructions for christian and non-christian slaves, but today we wouldn't stand for it, Same as a seperate status for women.

I still say we can apply these lessons to issues politicians throw in our faces to attempt a distraction from real issues

[carlos123]

Wow! I came back to check on this thread thinking that people were just ignoring it and lo and behold, responses.

But....ahem....cough...cough...the responses...well...have veered off in exactly the direction I did not want this thread to veer off into.

Anybody want to help me find what verses Paul was pointing at out of the Law??

Why am I interested in this topic? Well...for my next paper I think I will write on women in the church. So this verse is one I want to understand.

I am not interested in what is acceptable or not by today's standards. I am not interested in knowing why we should or should not do this or that. I am interested in knowing what the Word says and then in believing it and acting upon it. Why? Because it pleases the Lord and I love Him.

Not to mention of course that if I am going to call myself a Christian and claim that the Bible is God's revealed truth to us I can't rightly turn around and then pick and choose what I am going to follow and believe and act on out of the Bible now can I? Assuming of course that I have a good grasp and understanding of what it says on a subject and am not being unreasonable in my interpretation of it.

Carlos

[freyajem]

Wow! I came back to check on this thread thinking that people were just ignoring it and lo and behold, responses.

But....ahem....cough...cough...the responses...well...have veered off in exactly the direction I did not want this thread to veer off into.

Anybody want to help me find what verses Paul was pointing at out of the Law??

Why am I interested in this topic? Well...for my next paper I think I will write on women in the church. So this verse is one I want to understand.

I am not interested in what is acceptable or not by today's standards. I am not interested in knowing why we should or should not do this or that. I am interested in knowing what the Word says and then in believing it and acting upon it. Why? Because it pleases the Lord and I love Him.

Not to mention of course that if I am going to call myself a Christian and claim that the Bible is God's revealed truth to us I can't rightly turn around and then pick and choose what I am going to follow and believe and act on out of the Bible now can I? Assuming of course that I have a good grasp and understanding of what it says on a subject and am not being unreasonable in my interpretation of it.

Carlos

You just said how you wanted your question answered so why bother asking. I am not going to repeat back to you what you want to hear.

The bible say the man is master and the wife is to be obedient and be silent. I would not obey that because I do not think God would say that, demand that today. If a man beats me, I do not obey like a dog. If I have an education and am smart and wise, I share my wisdom and will not be silent. If that makes me an enemy of God, so be it.

[flyingsum0]

You just said how you wanted your question answered so why bother asking. I am not going to repeat back to you what you want to hear.

The bible say the man is master and the wife is to be obedient and be silent. I would not obey that because I do not think God would say that, demand that today. If a man beats me, I do not obey like a dog. If I have an education and am smart and wise, I share my wisdom and will not be silent. If that makes me an enemy of God, so be it.

No it does not make you an enemy of God. I know this because I agree with you 100% and I know Im not an enemy of God...

You go girl, God gave you gifts and your using them. That pleases our Father! What Father isn't happy when His children are sucessful?

Furthermore I take violence against women extremely serious. It makes Sumo VERY ANGRY!!! :mad:

[freyajem]

No it does not make you an enemy of God. I know this because I agree with you 100% and I know Im not an enemy of God...

You go girl, God gave you gifts and your using them. That pleases our Father! What Father isn't happy when His children are sucessful?

Furthermore I take violence against women extremely serious. It makes Sumo VERY ANGRY!!! :mad:

Sumo is a good man and violence against women is a good thing to get angry about:mad:but Sumso is I bet also this:hug:

[walshclan]

Carlos:

You can't obey God by following this law because it is aimed at women. It is between us and God. It is not a law that involves you. So if we feel it applies we will follow it and if we feel it doesn't apply to us we will not follow.

Now if you are doing a paper on whether you JUDGE we should or should not follow it, that is a whole different kettle of fish. My guess is that you think that women should not talk and you are looking for things that support your point of view. Anything else would be extraneous to you. I'm sorry I don't know of any to help you.

I personally think that women have a beatiful teaching ministry. People like Beth Moore are intrinsic in my spiritual journey. And if women were to keep silent at church our choirs would be quiet and our sunday schools would be untaught.

In Him,

Connie

[Merciel]

Hi ya all,

I was wondering if ya all could help me do a bit of Biblical research if you will.

Namely I am interested in finding out where in the Law it says that women (I believe married women in context) should be silent in the church in line with what Paul said...

Now...PLEASE do not stray into a discussion of what Paul meant! That is NOT what I am interested in researching, at least not here in this thread. I am interest in getting help to find out where in the Law it says something that supports what Paul said.

Anybody?

Carlos

He was quoting the common thought at the time. What people don't realize is that Paul sometimes quotes others. Not all his words are his own, despite what some Christians want to believe.

[Floatingaxe]

Since you wish not to discuss this, I will simply post a book.

Why not Women?

by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton


Women were not educated during that time and had to wait for men (father's and husband's) to explain the sermons to them. That is not the case today. Women are educated and are able to find things out for themselves.

It was a cultural and regional issue.

1Corinthian 14

Orderly Worship

26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=14&version=31#fen-NIV-28701i)] 39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.





Now that you know.....how about sharing with us Why you wish to know this specific passage?


That is my favourite book, and the most educating literature on the subject I have ever read! BRAVO! :thumbsup:

[carlos123]

The bible say the man is master and the wife is to be obedient and be silent.


Well...since no one seems inclined to help me find what verses from the Law Paul had in mind as a support for what he was saying about women being silent in church...well...I guess I will pipe in and say something about the subject itself.

I do not believe the bible says that a wife is to be silent. So off the bat freyajem it seems to me that you are reacting to a supposed thing that the Bible says that it in fact does not say. A favorite tactic of Satan by the way. To make us think the Bible says so and so and then to get us to reject that so and so as a way of stirring up rebellion in our hearts toward God.


I would not obey that because I do not think God would say that, demand that today.
The real issue is not what you and I might think but rather what the Bible says and whether IT says something should be applied today or not.


If a man beats me, I do not obey like a dog.
Good for you. I say that sincerely.


If I have an education and am smart and wise, I share my wisdom and will not be silent.
If you mean a wordly education as in a secular college or university - that does not help us at all to understand what God desires. As for being smart ... well perhaps you are. Wise? Maybe so. But again the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God and should not be highly esteemed by Christians.

As I said I do not believe the Bible commands women to be silent in general. So in the proper context I personally want women to speak and to share what is hopefully godly wisdom and insight. Any man unwilling to take what their wife says into account when making decisions is a fool.


If that makes me an enemy of God, so be it.Let's see... you will not obey what you think the bible says such that you will speak anyway and that if so doing makes you an enemy of God...well...so be it.

May I say that your reaction to what you think the Bible says reveals rebellion to be present in your heart.

May I further suggest freeyajem that we do not have the right to rebel against God no matter what He says in the Bible. If the Bible is clear on something we need to yield to God in what it says, trust, and obey. Why? Because we love Him and do not wish to live for ourselves any longer. Because we want Him to do with us whatever He wills to do with and through us.

So if the Bible clearly says what you say it does then all of us need to yield to God through it and trust that He knows what is best.

We are the clay. He is the potter. As such He has a right to do with us whatever He wishes. If that entails women being silent ... so be it (bear in mind once again that I am NOT saying the Bible says such a thing to all women in every place and in every way as you seem to think the Bible says).

A rebellious attitude toward God, however much we may obscure it by fine sounding human logic and wisdom, is still rebellion. God would have us approach Him with humble hearts desirious of doing His will whatever that will is.

Carlos

[AFinChrist]

Well...since no one seems inclined to help me find what verses from the Law Paul had in mind as a support for what he was saying about women being silent in church...well...I guess I will pipe in and say something about the subject itself.

uhhh, Carlos...did you see my post? That's been quoted even on this page?

I brought up the passage in 1 Corinthians 14

[carlos123]

uhhh, Carlos...did you see my post? That's been quoted even on this page?

I brought up the passage in 1 Corinthians 14

Oops! I missed something in trying to read the 19 responses that were here when I came back to the thread. Your quote of 1 Cor 14 did not seem to directly address the issue of which verses Paul had in mind when he referred to the Law to support his point but another poster mentioned verses pointed to by the Amplified Bible.

Anyway...sorry for missing some of what was said. My apologies.

Thanks very much for your input AFinChrist and for reminding me of it. :thumbsup:

Carlos

[freyajem]

May I further suggest freeyajem that we do not have the right to rebel against God no matter what He says in the Bible. If the Bible is clear on something we need to yield to God in what it says, trust, and obey. Why? Because we love Him and do not wish to live for ourselves any longer. Because we want Him to do with us whatever He wills to do with and through us.

I do not rebel against God. I most assuredly rebel against men and women who try to force their idea of God and sin and all on me. In actual fact I do not need to rebel at all for you do not know of what you speak.

[freyajem]

"Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." (NASB, 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Do you think so?

[freyajem]

"Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives..."
..........Romans 7:2




"For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does..."
..........1 Corinthians 7:4




"Likewise, you wives, be submissive to your husbands..."
..........1 Peter 3:1



"For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man."
..........1 Corinthians, 11:8




"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
..........1 Corinthians 14:34




"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord."
..........Ephesians 5:22




"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
..........Timothy 2:11




"It is well for a man not to touch a woman."
..........1 Corinthians 7:1




"And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem..."
..........2 Samuel 5:13




"...the Lord has trodden as in a wine press the virgin daughter of Judah."
..........Lamentations 1:



And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
..........Leviticus 15:19-24

[Floatingaxe]

"Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." (NASB, 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Do you think so?



Totally misunderstood passage of Scripture, and it adds to the devil's glee whenever he sees Christians, who should know better, fall into the error of misunderstanding.

Pal is writing to a church who has had continual problems with "newbies" to the faith coming into church meetings and being disruptive.

"A new message of hope?" "Hey, husband! What does pastor mean by that?"

Women were disrupting services by asking husbands about the truth, who were seated elsewhere in the house! The leaders were told that the women who were doing that were to be quiet and ask at home. Simple!!

Of course it is improper for a woman to speak out in church. A man already knew that, as they were already well-trained in church/synagogue etiquette! Women were left out of a lot of instruction in the past, but now after Christ, they were included and needed to be educated in mixed settings.

[freyajem]

Totally misunderstood passage of Scripture, and it adds to the devil's glee whenever he sees Christians, who should know better, fall into the error of misunderstanding.

Pal is writing to a church who has had continual problems with "newbies" to the faith coming into church meetings and being disruptive.

"A new message of hope?" "Hey, husband! What does pastor mean by that?"

Women were disrupting services by asking husbands about the truth, who were seated elsewhere in the house! The leaders were told that the women who were doing that were to be quiet and ask at home. Simple!!

Of course it is improper for a woman to speak out in church. A man already knew that, as they were already well-trained in church/synagogue etiquette! Women were left out of a lot of instruction in the past, but now after Christ, they were included and needed to be educated in mixed settings.

Interesting.

May I ask how you know what was going on in a church 2000 years ago.....you are anybody else?

[freyajem]

Totally misunderstood passage of Scripture, and it adds to the devil's glee whenever he sees Christians, who should know better, fall into the error of misunderstanding.

And I didn't misunderstand it or misquote it. All I did was to quote it, period.

You misunderstood.


"Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives..."
..........Romans 7:2




"For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does..."
..........1 Corinthians 7:4




"Likewise, you wives, be submissive to your husbands..."
..........1 Peter 3:1



"For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man."
..........1 Corinthians, 11:8




"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
..........1 Corinthians 14:34




"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord."
..........Ephesians 5:22




"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
..........Timothy 2:11




"It is well for a man not to touch a woman."
..........1 Corinthians 7:1




"And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem..."
..........2 Samuel 5:13




"...the Lord has trodden as in a wine press the virgin daughter of Judah."
..........Lamentations 1:



And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
..........Leviticus 15:19-24

[HypnoToad]

Oops! I missed something in trying to read the 19 responses that were here when I came back to the thread. Your quote of 1 Cor 14 did not seem to directly address the issue of which verses Paul had in mind when he referred to the Law to support his point but another poster mentioned verses pointed to by the Amplified Bible.

Anyway...sorry for missing some of what was said. My apologies.

Thanks very much for your input AFinChrist and for reminding me of it. :thumbsup:

Carlos
Did you also notice where I showed you that Paul's statement was that "obedience" is specified in the law, not "silence"?

Now, to whomever wants to know the difference - the silence is in reference to a specific situation where women were being disruptive, it is not a universal command for all situations for all time. Whereas obedience is a general rule for the husband-wife relationship. (And if one were to look at the entirety of Scripture and not take one statement out of context, one would find that this does not justify wife-beating.)

[Followers4christ]

Men and women have different roles,but are equal in the eyes of God (Galatians 3:28).Men are told to be the head of church and marriage.Men are told to never be harsh or deprive their wives,but to love their wives as Christ loves his church (1 Peter 3:7,Ephesians 5:25,Colossians 3:19,1 Corinthians 7:5,1 Timothy 5:8).Submission does not mean that a wife does not have input.Sarah, (the example of submission in 1 Peter 3:6) gave Abraham input which God said he was to follow (Genesis 21:11-12).A Godly wife is worth far more than all the rubies and treasures of this world (Proverbs 31:10-12).Godly wives should submit out of love towards their husbands.God Bless You All :)



Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband,and he will rule over you."

1 Corinthians 11:3"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

Colossians 3:18"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."

1 Peter 3:5-6"For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands,like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear."

1 Timothy 2:11-14"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.For Adam was formed first, then Eve.And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Ephesians 5:22-24"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Titus 2:5"to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."

1 Corinthians 14:34-35"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

[Floatingaxe]

Interesting.

May I ask how you know what was going on in a church 2000 years ago.....you are anybody else?


You have to know the context of the letter. Paul had been writing concerning the entire ministry of the church...see chapter 12. The history of these people is clear, in that they have come from pagan influence, worshipping in sex cults. Paul was instructing the church on how to handle its particular problems.

If Paul was literally stating an absolute, that all women should be silent in church, then he was contradicting himself! Three chapters earlier, in chapter 11, he instructed about women prophesying and praying..publically---about Jesus.

PS: When I mention that it is a misunderstood portion of Scripture, I mean COMMONLY misunderstood. It is by design of the evil one that people misinterpret it.

[freyajem]

You have to know the context of the letter. Paul had been writing concerning the entire ministry of the church...see chapter 12. The history of these people is clear, in that they have come from pagan influence, worshipping in sex cults. Paul was instructing the church on how to handle its particular problems.

If Paul was literally stating an absolute, that all women should be silent in church, then he was contradicting himself! Three chapters earlier, in chapter 11, he instructed about women prophesying and praying..publically---about Jesus.

PS: When I mention that it is a misunderstood portion of Scripture, I mean COMMONLY misunderstood. It is by design of the evil one that people misinterpret it.

Well, I have thought about it and realized that men, women and children(where possible)are quiet in church unless we are singing or reciting a common prayer.

So who cares if women have to be silent. We are all expected to be, men included.

Oh yes, now I remember, women read the epistles and things in church now. I suppose they couldn't then. Did they have epistles then? Oooops there goes your axe again.^_^

[Floatingaxe]

Well, I have thought about it and realized that men, women and children(where possible)are quiet in church unless we are singing or reciting a common prayer.

So who cares if women have to be silent. We are all expected to be, men included.

Oh yes, now I remember, women read the epistles and things in church now. I suppose they couldn't then. Did they have epistles then? Oooops there goes your axe again.^_^


I think women had a wonderful part in the meetings back then, in a well-functioning body.

[walshclan]

Carlos:

The law they are talking about is Moses law. The bible actually says Moses Law in the Contemporary English Version. This is the Jewish Law, also called the Halakhah. There are 613 laws in the Halakhah and there is a great deal of effort put into defining what can and cannot be done to follow each of these laws. Today they are still arguing about them. Anyway the list of laws can be found at:

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

The law in particular that is broken when women talk in church is number 69:

That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18)

The thought process is that a woman by speaking will call attention to herself and will cause men to lust after her causing them to sin. That is how the law is broken.

In Him,

Connie

[walshclan]

I've done the research into why Paul said "as the law said" but I didn't give you the full story. Today in the Jewish churches they are letting women read the Torah because their personal walk with God trumps the communities right to be not tempted (paraphrasing in a big way). Women can read the Torah in all but the most orthodox of synagogues. That is the way the Jewish Faith is handling it.

Now can they be rabbis...didn't check that out...you're on your own for that research.

In Him,

Connie

[Floatingaxe]

Carlos:

The law they are talking about is Moses law. The bible actually says Moses Law in the Contemporary English Version. This is the Jewish Law, also called the Halakhah. There are 613 laws in the Halakhah and there is a great deal of effort put into defining what can and cannot be done to follow each of these laws. Today they are still arguing about them. Anyway the list of laws can be found at:

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

The law in particular that is broken when women talk in church is number 69:

That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18)

The thought process is that a woman by speaking will call attention to herself and will cause men to lust after her causing them to sin. That is how the law is broken.

In Him,

Connie


Much of the misinterpretation of these passages of Paul are based upon the devaluation of women and the belief in the superiority of men which began in ancient Israel, and was reinforced upon the mind of man by the rabbinical law recorded in the Talmud. The Talmud sets forth such ridiculously hateful values such as...

"Women are gluttonous"; "Women are of unstable temperment"; and "Compared with Adam, Eve was like a monkey to a human being." Can you believe that????

We deal with those same infuences today!

It is only with a renewed mind---in Jesus Christ--that we can overcome such pressure and wrong thinking.

That is not law...it is culture. This imprinting of mysogyny carries on and influences the understanding of the intent of Paul's words. We must separate ourselves from such thinking.

[mont974x4]

These are not issues of worth but issues of our diferences. Men and women are not worth more or less we just have God given and God designed roles.

I am reminded of the women in Timothy's life, Esther, Priscilla, and Aphia (see Philemon).


While our culture is diferent from that of Corinth (in some ways at least) I do beleive the entire Bible is applicable to us today. What we need to do is pray that He reveals the lessons and truths to us and that we lay aside our preconceived notions.

[Floatingaxe]

These are not issues of worth but issues of our diferences. Men and women are not worth more or less we just have God given and God designed roles.

I am reminded of the women in Timothy's life, Esther, Priscilla, and Aphia (see Philemon).


While our culture is diferent from that of Corinth (in some ways at least) I do beleive the entire Bible is applicable to us today. What we need to do is pray that He reveals the lessons and truths to us and that we lay aside our preconceived notions.


Exactly!! :thumbsup:

[LJSGM]

Here's another possible answer for you.

There is no law written in the old testament about women being silent in church/synogoge. There is, I heard a one in the "ORAL" law (I have yet to look into it), sorta like the pharisaical law in Jesus' day. Some scholars suggest that Paul was being synical in his letter to these Jews that were new converts, who were trying to convince Paul that these legalities from the oral law were to be held as law in the church as well. I throw my hands up on this one :)

[carlos123]

Carlos:

The law they are talking about is Moses law. The bible actually says Moses Law in the Contemporary English Version. This is the Jewish Law, also called the Halakhah. There are 613 laws in the Halakhah and there is a great deal of effort put into defining what can and cannot be done to follow each of these laws. Today they are still arguing about them. Anyway the list of laws can be found at:

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

The law in particular that is broken when women talk in church is number 69:

That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18)

The thought process is that a woman by speaking will call attention to herself and will cause men to lust after her causing them to sin. That is how the law is broken.

In Him,

Connie

I appreciate your sharing all this with me Connie but it is my understanding that the Law Paul was referring to was the set of books we now know as the Torah. The five books of Moses otherwise known as the Law of Moses. They are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

I do not believe that Paul was referring to the Halakha when he said "the Law".

He was using "the Law" to definitively support what he was saying about women (it would seem married women in context) being silent in church. In other words he was using Scripture to support his point. I am not certain what Scripture in particular Paul was referring to but that it was Scripture seems clear. Anything less than using Scripture to support his point would have made his point just his personal opinion.

Carlos

[carlos123]

There is no law written in the old testament about women being silent in church/synogoge.


That seems to be the case LJSGM (huh?). However I believe that Paul had something in mind when he said "the Law" and it is that something that I would like to understand. Perhaps it is impossible to understand given that Paul did not cite chapter and verse so to speak.

But perhaps there are reasonable grounds to believe that this or that set of verses in the Old Testament Law might support Paul's point in principle if not literally.

Paul says something about women being silent. He says the Law supports his point. If that is the case, I mean that the Law supports his point, then it would seem that all attempts to interpret what Paul said as a cultural thing applicable to just the Corinthian church are mute. Given that the Law, given by God to the people of Israel hundreds if not thousands of years before Paul's time in the context of an entirely different culture from that of Corinth, still supports what Paul said.

In other words what Paul said may indeed be applicable across multiple cultures.

Carlos

[Floatingaxe]

That seems to be the case LJSGM (huh?). However I believe that Paul had something in mind when he said "the Law" and it is that something that I would like to understand. Perhaps it is impossible to understand given that Paul did not cite chapter and verse so to speak.

But perhaps there are reasonable grounds to believe that this or that set of verses in the Old Testament Law might support Paul's point in principle if not literally.

Paul says something about women being silent. He says the Law supports his point. If that is the case, I mean that the Law supports his point, then it would seem that all attempts to interpret what Paul said as a cultural thing applicable to just the Corinthian church are mute. Given that the Law, given by God to the people of Israel hundreds if not thousands of years before Paul's time in the context of an entirely different culture from that of Corinth, still supports what Paul said.

In other words what Paul said may indeed be applicable across multiple cultures.

Carlos


Please show me where Paul referred to a particular Law concerning his instruction about some women causing a disturbance in church.

[carlos123]

Did you also notice where I showed you that Paul's statement was that "obedience" is specified in the law, not "silence"?


Yes I did XianJedi. I am mulling over the relationship between silence and obedience in the verses in question and have not come to any conclusion yet.

Carlos

[carlos123]

Please show me where Paul referred to a particular Law concerning his instruction about some women causing a disturbance in church.

Well...let me quote the verses in question followed by my comments just below them.


1 Corinthians 14:34
Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted for them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law.
Something in the law says that women are to be under obedience (or subjection). And that truth supports Paul's admonition that women keep silent in church.

I see now that Paul did not say that the law directly spoke to or supported his admonition that women be silent in church. Rather it said that women should be under obedience which indirectly supported his admonition.


And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home:

Paul admonished the women whom he said should remain silent in church to rather ask their husbands at home what it is that they would have asked if they were allowed to speak in church. Which leads me to believe Paul was admonishing that the married women be silent but not women in general.


for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.For women (who are married and have husbands at home whom they can ask about things) to speak thus in church is a shame. It is something that should not be done if I am understanding Paul correctly.


What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it to you only?
In other words Paul is telling the Corinthians to listen up. That they don't have a handle on how God wants things done as they would if the word of God had come out through them (instead of being brought to them through Paul and others) and had only come to them.


If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
Paul ends by saying that what he has written to them is not just his own opinions but rather the commandments of the Lord.

It seems clear that Paul used the principle of women being obedient or under subjection as a support for his admonition that women (I believe married women) be silent in church. The only question is whether Paul's admonition is applicable to today.

Several things lead me to tentatively believe Paul's admonition is applicable today (I still need to pray and think about this some more).

Why the need to ask their husbands at home? What is it about the marriage relationship that differs from church such that Paul would give liberty to speak in that relationship but not in church. Is that difference, I mean between marriage and church life in regards to women speaking, something that applied only to the church of Corinth or does that difference still exist and apply today?

Whatever that difference, I believe it still exists. For a married women to ask in church and not her husband in private was a shame. Something to be embarrased about. Educated or not makes no difference. The shameful part was that a married woman would speak out in church rather than ask her husband at home. Not that an uneducated woman might have displayed some shameful ignorance (not to mention that a secular or wordly education means absolutely nothing in terms of understanding God's truth such that the relative state of education among the women would have made no difference in terms of understanding spiritual things). Paul would not have said what he said capriciously or out of chavinistic tendencies.

He probably had in mind the picture of the relationship with Christ that was supposed to be mirrored in the marriage relationship. Such that allowing married women to speak out in church rather than asking their husbands would not have mirrored the relationship of the church to Christ somehow. I don't know (like I said I am still praying about this).

In other words the reason women could ask their husbands then rather than speak up in church may still be a valid a reason for married women to do the same today.

Carlos

[Floatingaxe]

Well...let me quote the verses in question followed by my comments just below them.

Something in the law says that women are to be under obedience (or subjection). And that truth supports Paul's admonition that women keep silent in church.

I see now that Paul did not say that the law directly spoke to or supported his admonition that women be silent in church. Rather it said that women should be under obedience which indirectly supported his admonition.


Paul admonished the women whom he said should remain silent in church to rather ask their husbands at home what it is that they would have asked if they were allowed to speak in church. Which leads me to believe Paul was admonishing that the married women be silent but not women in general.

For women (who are married and have husbands at home whom they can ask about things) to speak thus in church is a shame. It is something that should not be done if I am understanding Paul correctly.

In other words Paul is telling the Corinthians to listen up. That they don't have a handle on how God wants things done as they would if the word of God had come out through them (instead of being brought to them through Paul and others) and had only come to them.

Paul ends by saying that what he has written to them is not just his own opinions but rather the commandments of the Lord.

It seems clear that Paul used the principle of women being obedient or under subjection as a support for his admonition that women (I believe married women) be silent in church. The only question is whether Paul's admonition is applicable to today.

Several things lead me to tentatively believe Paul's admonition is applicable today (I still need to pray and think about this some more).

Why the need to ask their husbands at home? What is it about the marriage relationship that differs from church such that Paul would give liberty to speak in that relationship but not in church. Is that difference, I mean between marriage and church life in regards to women speaking, something that applied only to the church of Corinth or does that difference still exist and apply today?

Whatever that difference, I believe it still exists. For a married women to ask in church and not her husband in private was a shame. Something to be embarrased about. Educated or not makes no difference. The shameful part was that a married woman would speak out in church rather than ask her husband at home. Not that an uneducated woman might have displayed some shameful ignorance (not to mention that a secular or wordly education means absolutely nothing in terms of understanding God's truth such that the relative state of education among the women would have made no difference in terms of understanding spiritual things). Paul would not have said what he said capriciously or out of chavinistic tendencies.

He probably had in mind the picture of the relationship with Christ that was supposed to be mirrored in the marriage relationship. Such that allowing married women to speak out in church rather than asking their husbands would not have mirrored the relationship of the church to Christ somehow. I don't know (like I said I am still praying about this).

In other words the reason women could ask their husbands then rather than speak up in church may still be a valid a reason for married women to do the same today.

Carlos


Thanks. I only asked for one thing, however! The law reference! :doh: ^_^

It was only for a particular bunch of women causing disorder. It was not for women in general at all.

[carlos123]

Thanks. I only asked for one thing, however! The law reference! :doh: ^_^


You are right Floatingaxe. I did take some liberty with that. :blush:


It was only for a particular bunch of women causing disorder. It was not for women in general at all.Pray tell why a particular bunch of women? Married women I can see but where does it say a particular bunch of women (other than in the literature so seemingly popular that negates any application to what Paul said to today of course).

Where does it also say that this supposed group of women was causing disorder?

It was a shame for a married woman to speak in public rather than ask her husband. I read no reference to disorder there. Only to shame in doing one (speaking publicly) and not the other (speaking to husbands at home).

Carlos

[jdale72]

I feel Paul is speaking in terms of flesh and spirit. That Christ be brought forth not mere doctrine. Verse 36: Was it from you that the word of God first went forth?Or has it come to you only?

[Floatingaxe]

You are right Floatingaxe. I did take some liberty with that. :blush:

Pray tell why a particular bunch of women? Married women I can see but where does it say a particular bunch of women (other than in the literature so seemingly popular that negates any application to what Paul said to today of course).

Where does it also say that this supposed group of women was causing disorder?

It was a shame for a married woman to speak in public rather than ask her husband. I read no reference to disorder there. Only to shame in doing one (speaking publicly) and not the other (speaking to husbands at home).

Carlos


Paul was responding to a difficulty which that church was having, with men AND women coming out of paganism, with temple prostitution seen as a regular religious rite. These people had been steeped in such perversion, and were now introduced to Christianity, embracing Christ, but displaying behaviours that were unruly--especially some of the women there.

Paul was simply restoring order. The women were uneducated and ignorant (not their fault), interrupting and asking questions of the new truths they had not heard before! Paul's instruction was for them to hold their queries for their husbands at home.

Paul WAS NOT silencing all women everywhere for all time--he was simply offering his instruction to restore order. Period.

Of course, we see how Greco-Roman mysogyny has crept into the church through the cultural arena, and we continue with much of its influence even 2000 years later. Interesting, wouldn't you say?

[carlos123]

Paul was responding to a difficulty which that church was having, with men AND women coming out of paganism, with temple prostitution seen as a regular religious rite. These people had been steeped in such perversion, and were now introduced to Christianity, embracing Christ, but displaying behaviours that were unruly--especially some of the women there.


The things you say above are all historical assumptions Floatingaxe. None of which are explicitly stated as such in any of Paul's letters to the church of Corinth.

Such historical assumptions, many of whom are parroted around the Christian world as if they were on par with the Scriptures, are used by many to discount what Paul was saying as applicable or relevant to us today.

Don't get me wrong. I believe history is valuable in helping us understand the background of what is written in the Word and at times in helping us understand what it says but it can also serve to justify our lack of willingness to abide by what is written or to let God be God and have His way with us.

I am reminded of one professing Christian I was talking to the other day (I say professing because I do not know him that well - aside from his being a deacon at a new church) who said that historically, mothers were in charge of the wine at weddings in New Testament times. Given that (assumption of course since I know of no such historical fact) his conclusion was that the wedding where Jesus turned water into wine was Jesus's own. To Mary Magdelene no less!


Paul was simply restoring order.
On that point we can agree Floatingaxe :).


The women were uneducated and igmorant (not their fault),
Another historical assumption. So if I may play the devil's advocate here...were ALL women in the Corinthian church uneducated? If not why the admonishment for ALL women to be silent (at least all married women)??

Were ALL the men educated? Such that they needed no admonishment to be quiet?

And if ALL the women were uneducated (a great BIG historical assumption I should add) how would a lack of education (secular education I assume) have made it imperative that they keep quiet in church and only ask their husbands at home?

Since when does a lack or possession of secular education determine whether ANY Christian (male or female) should be quiet in the assembly?

I should point out that EVERY Christian in Corinth (male or female) was ignorant of spiritual truth when they first became Christians. The men had no advantage in that regard and would have been on the whole just as likely to be ignorant as the women regarding spiritual truths. Why did Paul admonish only the women to be quiet??


interrupting and asking questions of the new truths they had not heard before!
I would like to point out again that the men in Corinth were no more sophisticated in their understanding of such truths than the women!! So again I ask why Paul's admonishment only to the women (married I believe in context)?


Paul's instruction was for them to hold their queries for their husbands at home.
What about women who had no husbands? And how do you explain these women, being forced by Paul's admonition, having to ask husband's who were just as ignorant as them about the spiritual truths they were hearing??

The education reasoning for why Paul said what he said does not hold any water in my book.

It's interesting what Paul said at the beginning of his letter to the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians 1:26 to be exact...

For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.


Sounds like a whole lot of ignorant uneducated people were converted to Christ in Corinth. Men AND women both!

Again...

What kind of education are we talking about?
Were ALL the women likewise uneducated?
Were ALL the men educated?


Of course, we see how Greco-Roman mysogyny has crept into the church through the cultural arena, and we continue with much of its influence even 2000 years later. Interesting, wouldn't you say? There may have indeed been strong mysogyny in the Greco-Roman world but that does mean that every Christian who supports the belief that Paul's statements are applicable to women in the assembly today is likewise hateful or prejudiced against women.

Carlos

[Athene]

Was the church in Corinth made up of jews or gentiles? Because if it was a gentile church then there would be no point in looking to the OT for the law would it? The Greeks had many laws governing the behaviour of women, it would not suprise me if there was one where she was not permitted to talk in a public place.

This is an explanation I've heard for those verses.

1 Cor 14:34-35
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

What's missing from the text is a word which could be translated as Not. You know how some people go 'NOT!!' after saying something for example ' I really like your dress, NOT!' Well apparently there's a word that kind of means the same thing as 'Not' in that context ish - kind of, but it's missing from our translations. If this word was in it would change the meaning of that verse a bit. Like the woman being in silence was the Corinthians way of dealing with a problem of noisy women in church, but then Paul says 'Not! Did the word of God originate with you . . . ' Verses 36-38 sound like a rebuke, but what is he rebuking.

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[i (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1+cor+14&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=31&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0#fen-NIV-28701i)]

And the last bit is Paul telling the Corinthians to prophesy etc but in an orderly manner.


39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

[Floatingaxe]

Just to respond to part of your post, carlos:

Yes, historical setting is very impotant. That being said, it is important to note that the belief of that day was that women were vastly inferior...even less than dogs in value. Of course women were less educated, and of course they would probably be unruly, having come from the crass world of temple prostitution.

This command for women to be silent is only one of several that Paul made to many different addressees. Of course superior males will only capitalize on the women!

1. verse 28: Those who speak in tongues "should keep quiet"

2. verse 30: The prophets "should stop"

3. verse 34: The women "should remain silent"

It was the same word used to instruct silence. In all it was not an absolute for-all-time injunction!

It is dishonest to single out the command for women and make it the absolute against them, and ignore the other commands for the prophetic and those who speak in tongues. There is a definite obsession over the one command concerning orderly conduct at the expense of the others.

[Athene]

There aren't many books on women in antiquity but one I've read and I recall it being quite good is Goddesses, Wives, Whores and Slaves -Women in classical antiquity by Sarah Pomeroy. If you're really interested in finding out if women in ancient Greece were educated or not then this would be a good place to start.

[carlos123]

Just to respond to part of your post, carlos:

Yes, historical setting is very impotant. That being said, it is important to note that the belief of that day was that women were vastly inferior...even less than dogs in value. Of course women were less educated, and of course they would probably be unruly, having come from the crass world of temple prostitution.


I agree that in general women were probably less educated than the men in New Testament times. But you miss the point of what I have been saying Floatingaxe.

That education was a secular education. Not a spiritual one. And a secular education has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on one being able to discern and understand spiritual truth.

Assuming the men were more educated (in a secular way) why did Paul admonish the women to be silent and not the men? Given that even the greater degree of secular education in the men did not enable them to understand spiritual truth any better than the women!


Of course superior males will only capitalize on the women!
Who, pray tell, are you referring to when you say "superior males"?? Me? Paul? The Corinthian males?


1. verse 28: Those who speak in tongues "should keep quiet"

2. verse 30: The prophets "should stop"

3. verse 34: The women "should remain silent"

It was the same word used to instruct silence. In all it was not an absolute for-all-time injuction!


Those who speak in tongues should keep quiet if there is no interpreter. Those who prophesy should stop if a prophesy comes to another who is sitting down. And women (married) should remain silent in church and ask their husbands at home about things.

Why is it that only the women being quiet part is singled out as non-applicable today whereas the tongues speaking and prophesying parts are okay for today??

Sounds to me like the men themselves were being pretty disruptive and disorderly in their tongues speaking and prophesying don't you think? Why, pray tell, did Paul not tell them to be quiet for such disorderliness? Why did he tell the women (married) to be quiet for similar disorderliness (if indeed it was for disorderliness) and not the men??

You have not addressed this Floatingaxe.


It is dishonest to single out the command for women and make it the absolute against them, and ignore the other commands for the prophetic and those who speak in tongues.
Agreed! We should take all of what Paul said and believe all that God instructs us to do through it. I have focused on the women part because that is the subject of this thread and for no other reason.

But in a similar veing Floatingaxe I ask again why did Paul single out the women as needing to be quiet when in fact the men were just as guilty, if not more so, for talking in tongues without interpretation and not allowing prophecy to be spoken as God intended? Why did he not tell the men, who were being disorderly and ignorant of God's ways, to be quiet? Why was it just the women he told that to?

[carlos123]

Just to respond to part of your post, carlos:

Yes, historical setting is very impotant. That being said, it is important to note that the belief of that day was that women were vastly inferior...even less than dogs in value. Of course women were less educated, and of course they would probably be unruly, having come from the crass world of temple prostitution.
Just one more question Floatingaxe....are you saying that ALL the women converts in Corinth were formerly temple prostitutes?

Incidentally I find it rather odd to believe that temple prostitutes were more disruptive than former swindlers, cheats, and others among the men converts.

Even today, I do not believe prostitutes from the streets visiting a church are any more or less disruptive than others. Unless they are on crack I suppose.

For that matter if we go by the temple prostitutes being disruptive interpretation of what Paul said...well...I suppose every prostitute who visits a church today and has not been educated at a university or such...should...well...should keep quiet.

I mean if that is what Paul was trying to address (that uneducated, unruly, former temple prostitutes should keep quiet) then it stands to reason that what he said would apply to any uneducated, unruly, former street prostitutes converting to Christianity and going to church today. Would it not?

Carlos

[Floatingaxe]

I agree that in general women were probably less educated than the men in New Testament times. But you miss the point of what I have been saying Floatingaxe.

That education was a secular education. Not a spiritual one. And a secular education has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on one being able to discern and understand spiritual truth.

Assuming the men were more educated (in a secular way) why did Paul admonish the women to be silent and not the men? Given that even the greater degree of secular education in the men did not enable them to understand spiritual truth any better than the women!

Who, pray tell, are you referring to when you say "superior males"?? Me? Paul? The Corinthian males?



Those who speak in tongues should keep quiet if there is no interpreter. Those who prophesy should stop if a prophesy comes to another who is sitting down. And women (married) should remain silent in church and ask their husbands at home about things.

Why is it that only the women being quiet part is singled out as non-applicable today whereas the tongues speaking and prophesying parts are okay for today??

Sounds to me like the men themselves were being pretty disruptive and disorderly in their tongues speaking and prophesying don't you think? Why, pray tell, did Paul not tell them to be quiet for such disorderliness? Why did he tell the women (married) to be quiet for similar disorderliness (if indeed it was for disorderliness) and not the men??

You have not addressed this Floatingaxe.

Agreed! We should take all of what Paul said and believe all that God instructs us to do through it. I have focused on the women part because that is the subject of this thread and for no other reason.

But in a similar veing Floatingaxe I ask again why did Paul single out the women as needing to be quiet when in fact the men were just as guilty, if not more so, for talking in tongues without interpretation and not allowing prophecy to be spoken as God intended? Why did he not tell the men, who were being disorderly and ignorant of God's ways, to be quiet? Why was it just the women he told that to?


He singled out women because it was a particular problem at that particular time. So also was the disorderly conduct surrounding tongues and prophesying!

Once order restored in that congregation, so other congregations had instruction in that area, by the reading of the same Corinthian letter. I am sure it was written as a circular...not sure at this moment, however.

Order! Order! Order in the House!

That is all Paul was focusing on.

[Floatingaxe]

Just one more question Floatingaxe....are you saying that ALL the women converts in Corinth were formerly temple prostitutes?

Incidentally I find it rather odd to believe that temple prostitutes were more disruptive than former swindlers, cheats, and others among the men converts.

Even today, I do not believe prostitutes from the streets visiting a church are any more or less disruptive than others. Unless they are on crack I suppose.

For that matter if we go by the temple prostitutes being disruptive interpretation of what Paul said...well...I suppose every prostitute who visits a church today and has not been educated at a university or such...should...well...should keep quiet.

I mean if that is what Paul was trying to address (that uneducated, unruly, former temple prostitutes should keep quiet) then it stands to reason that what he said would apply to any uneducated, unruly, former street prostitutes converting to Christianity and going to church today. Would it not?

Carlos


No, not all temple prostitutes, but they were the ones making the ruckus, it is believed.

[carlos123]

He singled out women because it was a particular problem at that particular time. So also was the disorderly conduct surrounding tongues and prophesying!


So no one today speaks in tongues and prophesies in a disorderly manner (i.e. not according to God's way)?

So neither the part of women (married) being quiet, or the part of how and when to speak in tongues, or the part about prophesying is applicable today? All THREE!??


Order! Order! Order in the House!
Amen to that!! Let's do it God's way and follow his instructions for tongues speaking, prophesying, and women (married) speaking out in church. Amen to that!!

Carlos

[Floatingaxe]

So no one today speaks in tongues and prophesies in a disorderly manner (i.e. not according to God's way)?

So neither the part of women (married) being quiet, or the part of how and when to speak in tongues, or the part about prophesying is applicable today? All THREE!??

Amen to that!! Let's do it God's way and follow his instructions for tongues speaking, prophesying, and women (married) speaking out in church. Amen to that!!

Carlos

Amen, brother! (No one should be speaking out in church except to offer support to the pastors and praise to God!)

[carlos123]

No, not all temple prostitutes, but they were the ones making the ruckus, it is believed.

Ahh...

So now we have just some being temple prostitutes. I see.

So let me get this straight. Paul is saying that all women (married) should keep quiet. But he actually did not mean all women literally. Just those that were formerly temple prostitutes. The rest...well...I guess they could speak. No...that's not what it literally says. Hmm...well...maybe there were so many temple prostitutes there that...well...he threw all women into his admonition. No...that doesn't make sense either.

Forgive me Floatingaxe and I mean no disrespect but it seems to me that we are interpreting this set of instructions from Paul in a way that is akin to trying to unravel a bowl full of spiritually twisted spaghetti.

Seems to me that we are trying to make what Paul said fit our idea of what it should say and not taking what he said at face value.

Don't you see how ridiculous this whole "temple prostitutes being disruptive" interpretation is?

Carlos

[carlos123]

Amen, brother! (No one should be speaking out in church except to offer support to the pastors and praise to God!)

Tell me something Floatingaxe...do you believe that Christians are free to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they are going to believe and obey?

Carlos

[Floatingaxe]

Ahh...

So now we have just some being temple prostitutes. I see.

So let me get this straight. Paul is saying that all women (married) should keep quiet. But he actually did not mean all women literally. Just those that were formerly temple prostitutes. The rest...well...I guess they could speak. No...that's not what it literally says. Hmm...well...maybe there were so many temple prostitutes there that...well...he threw all women into his admonition. No...that doesn't make sense either.

Forgive me Floatingaxe and I mean no disrespect but it seems to me that we are interpreting this set of instructions from Paul in a way that is akin to trying to unravel a bowl full of spiritually twisted spaghetti.

Seems to me that we are trying to make what Paul said fit our idea of what it should say and not taking what he said at face value.

Don't you see how ridiculous this whole "temple prostitutes being disruptive" interpretation is?

Carlos

No.

What is ridiculous is the belief that has come about from a mere instruction from the leader of the church in question telling his fellow leaders how to handle their problem. Context, context, context.

[Floatingaxe]

Tell me something Floatingaxe...do you believe that Christians are free to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they are going to believe and obey?

Carlos

Of course not. Why do you ask?

[carlos123]

What is ridiculous is the belief that has come about from a mere instruction from the leader of the church in question telling his fellow leaders how to handle their problem. Context, context, context.

Not sure what you mean Floatingaxe. Can you please elaborate a bit more.

Carlos

[carlos123]

Of course not. why do you ask?

Because in a previous post you said, if I understood you correctly, that the instructions to tongues speakers, prophets, AND women were all for the Corinthian church and not for us today.

If that is so any Christian could likewise say that ANY instructions in the book of Corinthians would likewise be only for the Corinthian church and not for us.

Which is to say that we can ignore what is the book of Corinthians (i.e. in effect picking and choosing what we are going to believe and obey today).

Carlos

[Floatingaxe]

Because in a previous post you said, if I understood you correctly, that the instructions to tongues speakers, prophets, AND women were all for the Corinthian church and not for us today.

If that is so any Christian could likewise say that ANY instructions in the book of Corinthians would likewise be only for the Corinthian church and not for us.

Which is to say that we can ignore what is the book of Corinthians (i.e. in effect picking and choosing what we are going to believe and obey today).

Carlos


The universal context is that we be orderly...not silent.

[carlos123]

The universal context is that we be orderly...

Quite true!

Paul instructs us in what that orderliness looks like. Tongues speakers should not speak unless there is an interpreter. Prophets should stop if a prophecy comes to one sitting down. And married women should be silent in an assembly and ask their husbands at home if they have any questions.

Sounds pretty orderly to me :).

Carlos

[Tildyd]

Sounds pretty orderly to me :).


Well not that (http://s15.bitefight.fr/c.php?uid=17303) much.

[LJSGM]

Was the church in Corinth made up of jews or gentiles? Because if it was a gentile church then there would be no point in looking to the OT for the law would it? The Greeks had many laws governing the behaviour of women, it would not suprise me if there was one where she was not permitted to talk in a public place.

This is an explanation I've heard for those verses.

1 Cor 14:34-35


What's missing from the text is a word which could be translated as Not. You know how some people go 'NOT!!' after saying something for example ' I really like your dress, NOT!' Well apparently there's a word that kind of means the same thing as 'Not' in that context ish - kind of, but it's missing from our translations. If this word was in it would change the meaning of that verse a bit. Like the woman being in silence was the Corinthians way of dealing with a problem of noisy women in church, but then Paul says 'Not! Did the word of God originate with you . . . ' Verses 36-38 sound like a rebuke, but what is he rebuking.



And the last bit is Paul telling the Corinthians to prophesy etc but in an orderly manner.

Yes, we have to look at the character of Paul, and the gospel that he preached. If taken literally, this verse seems a bit legalistic to me and goes against the rest of what Paul preached. If Paul said that everyone should speak from the spirit only and in order, I wouldn't question this so much. But Paul didn't want us to be slaves to the law, but to have freedom in Christ, if you are following the Holy Spirit. I believe he was concerned with what was beneficial to the church, but not wanting to establish new laws or old ones that were legalistic. Therefore this interpretation that he was rebuking them in his letter makes much more sense to me.

Galatians 4

21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written:
"Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband."[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=4&version=31#fen-NIV-29143b)] 28Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=4&version=31#fen-NIV-29146c)] 31Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

[freyajem]

Hi ya all,

I was wondering if ya all could help me do a bit of Biblical research if you will.

Namely I am interested in finding out where in the Law it says that women (I believe married women in context) should be silent in the church in line with what Paul said...

Now...PLEASE do not stray into a discussion of what Paul meant! That is NOT what I am interested in researching, at least not here in this thread. I am interest in getting help to find out where in the Law it says something that supports what Paul said.

Anybody?

Carlos

I found the following. It seems to make sense for the time it was written but I can't see where it applies to women in church now.

Do women have to remain silent in church?

http://www.gotquestions.org/images/1x1-blue.gif Question: "Do women have to remain silent in church?"

Answer: 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 states, "...As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." At first glance, this seems to be a blanket command that women are not allowed to speak at all in the church. However, 1 Corinthians 11:5 mentions women praying and prophesying in the church - and does not condemn it. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 must not be an absolutely command for women to always be silent in church.

The context of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 is talking about interpreting and understanding the gifts of tongues and prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:26-32). Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:34 is not commanding women to be absolutely silent in the church all the time. It is only saying that women should not participate when tongues and/or prophecy is being interpreted and tested (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22; 1 John 4:1). This is in agreement with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 which says that women should not teach or have authority over men. If women were involved in deciding whether a prophecy was truly from God, they would be disobeying what the Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Therefore, Paul tells women to be silent when tongues and prophecy are being interpreted so t

[carlos123]

Thanks freeyajem. That is about the first explanation of the verses in context that seems to make sense and that does not sound like an excuse to ignore what is plainly written.

I was thinking about this issue last night and wondering why it is that so many seem so deceived into believing this or that questionable explanation for these verses. I was also reading a similar thread started a while back here on whether women should preach and was absolutely astounded at the deception among even those who call themselves by His name.

Instead of focusing on trying to understand and asking the Lord to open our minds to what He was trying to say through Paul we focus on all kinds of reasons why Paul could not have said what he so plainly said.

I would like therefore to backtrack a bit and ask a question. There is something that has been missing from this discussion that is absolutely vital if we are to grasp what God is saying through Paul.

Namely...are we WILLING to apply what God said through Paul, whatever He said if He can show us clearly what He was trying to say??

Some may pipe up and say "Yes!" but that God would never say so and so. That's not what I am talking about. That's not being honest about our willingness. It takes nothing to say yes to being willing to do that which we believe will never be the case.

Rather I am asking...are we WILLING to go before the Lord and with humble and obedient hearts seek to have Him open our minds to understand what Paul said so that we might please Him better in how we conduct church? Are we open to the possibility that what some of us so adamently oppose may indeed be God's way.

Jesus said...in John 7:17


"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. " "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. " "He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. "
Some translations say "If any man is willing...". The above verses make it clear that we MUST be willing if we are to correctly discern whether a teaching (such as that women should be quiet) is of God or whether the person bringing said teaching is simply sharing his own opinion.

Are we willing?

Secondly are we seeking the glory of God through our insistance that Paul could not have meant what he said or our own?

Whose glory and comfort are we seeking? God's or our own?

If we are seeking the glory of God then it should not matter to us whether what Paul said is to be applied today or not. Because our lives are not our own anymore. We are God's through Christ and He has the right to do with us whatever He wants. We know that He loves us. He demonstrated that love and we know that He knows what is best for us.

That should be enough. Whatever He asks us to do through the Word.

If we truly love God and if He asks us to through the Word we all should be willing to shut our mouths and say nothing verbally the rest of our lives. Like some monks of old did when they took a vow of silence to never speak again.

So what! If that is what God wants me to do then I am willing. I love Him and want to please Him. Period.

I am not interested in justifying what is seen to be more acceptable in our day and age. I am not interested in making sure that my "rights" are upheld (never mind that in the Presence of God we have no rights that entail doing things for own comfort and in line with our own desires). I am not interested in doing that which I would rather do.

I am interested in doing HIS will. HIS way.

So are we willing?
Are we seeking His glory or our own?

The answer to these two questions will determine whether we are able to see what God is saying through Paul or not.

Carlos

[LJSGM]

I was thinking about this issue last night and wondering why it is that so many seem so deceived into believing this or that questionable explanation for these verses. I was also reading a similar thread started a while back here on whether women should preach and was absolutely astounded at the deception among even those who call themselves by His name.

Instead of focusing on trying to understand and asking the Lord to open our minds to what He was trying to say through Paul we focus on all kinds of reasons why Paul could not have said what he so plainly said.

I would like therefore to backtrack a bit and ask a question. There is something that has been missing from this discussion that is absolutely vital if we are to grasp what God is saying through Paul.

Namely...are we WILLING to apply what God said through Paul, whatever He said if He can show us clearly what He was trying to say??

Some may pipe up and say "Yes!" but that God would never say so and so. That's not what I am talking about. That's not being honest about our willingness. It takes nothing to say yes to being willing to do that which we believe will never be the case.

Rather I am asking...are we WILLING to go before the Lord and with humble and obedient hearts seek to have Him open our minds to understand what Paul said so that we might please Him better in how we conduct church? Are we open to the possibility that what some of us so adamently oppose may indeed be God's way.


Carlos

Just because some have come to a different interpretation then your very literal one does not mean that everyone else is not seeking the truth with a humble and obedient heart.

[carlos123]

Just because some have come to a different interpretation then your very literal one does not mean that everyone else is not seeking the truth with a humble and obedient heart.

Agreed but it can be a problem, according to Jesus, in understanding truth.

Are you yourself willing LJSGM? Are you seeking His glory LJSGM or your own in any discussion of this issue?

Have you surrendered to God through Jesus Christ laying at the foot of the cross all your hopes and dreams and desires in this life and taking up His instead?

Are you willing to do whatever and go wherever God may want you to go LJSGM?

God knows your heart but I am asking you as a fellow believer and in the Presence of God to openly acknowledge what is in your heart regarding these questions.

I should point out that the last two persons who lied before God in the presence of His Body that I am aware of...died (Acts 5).

Carlos

[LJSGM]

Agreed but it can be a problem, according to Jesus, in understanding truth.

Are you yourself willing LJSGM? Are you seeking His glory LJSGM or your own in any discussion of this issue?

Have you surrendered to God through Jesus Christ laying at the foot of the cross all your hopes and dreams and desires in this life and taking up His instead?

Are you willing to do whatever and go wherever God may want you to go LJSGM?

God knows your heart but I am asking you as a fellow believer and in the Presence of God to openly acknowledge what is in your heart regarding these questions.

I should point out that the last two persons who lied before God in the presence of His Body that I am aware of...died (Acts 5).

Carlos
Romans 2

19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself?

Yes I know where that verse is.

Here's another

Romans 2

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

Now, lets get back to the discussion instead of being smug.

[Lightcreated]

Is it just me? am i the only person the can see that we are very very close to the last day?

[LJSGM]

Is it just me? am i the only person the can see that we are very very close to the last day?
Yes, we are very close to the last day because someone might have taught somewhere that woman are allowed to speak in church! What an abmonination! Why is this verse the difference between life and death? Between being saved and unsaved if you get it right or wrong? This is just silly.

[Floatingaxe]

Yes, we are very close to the last day because someone might have taught somewhere that woman are allowed to speak in church! What an abmonination! Why is this verse the difference between life and death? Between being saved and unsaved if you get it right or wrong? This is just silly.


^_^ ^_^ :clap: ^_^ ^_^

[freyajem]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LJSGM http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=34524486#post34524486)
Yes, we are very close to the last day because someone might have taught somewhere that woman are allowed to speak in church! What an abmonination! Why is this verse the difference between life and death? Between being saved and unsaved if you get it right or wrong? This is just silly.


^_^ :clap: ^_^

What I have been hearing everywhere else is that the bible has to be followed as is and that there can be no choosing what verses to ignore. And yet here I am seeing two saying a verse is silly, a word I was admonished for using. I would think that you either do what you say or you don't and you don't rat at other people for not following exactly.

Anyway I really am just wondering why you think you have the right to choose here and nobody has the right to choose elsewhere.

Is there a good answer?</