• Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 11,000 members today

    Register Log In

Why God Commanded Women to be Silent in Church?

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Member
I understand Your claim - oldhermit.

However, I ask that You please consider that - it could be You - who is only looking at the Bible message through the eyes, scope, lens or the CONTACT of the worldly standards and worldly concept of the role of women in the role and relationship of humanity and mankind.

May I also clarify the fact - that - if the women are prophesying and are " literal " prophets of God - and this is what a prophet does ( they prophecy to people ) and there were a number of female prophets in the Old and New Testament. But it was not a worldly, spontaneous and natural ability for women to travel abroad, traversing and trekking – wandering alone through the deserts, wildernesses and throughout the dangerous mobs of men, to give the prophecy of God to very many people outside of their own close circle of friends and family. There were many sexist and prejudice people with preconceived judgments and opinions and there was a whole world that was willed with abusers who raped and manipulated and even kidnapped and sexually sold women in sex trades - the moment that a woman stepped outside of their circle of protection.

Female prophets in the Bible - were always used and valued in the role of working for God by staying in the in a safe environment - and God used the MALE prophets to go around the entire countryside, across deserts, through wildernesses and on long life adventures that include all the details in entire multiple book of the Bible - and to serve with Kings and leaders in a time of war and in dangerous situations where the males usually were situated and needed - and women did not serve in these capacities.

Where is that You would imagine that women prophets ( who are giving prophecy ) in the Bible and of Today would be DOING their prophetic works and giving prophecy ? Would they doing this while they are at home doing the dishes or laundry ? - or sweeping the floor or changing diapers ? or baby sitting or sewing clothes or weaving baskets ?

Would Gods interpretation to a message in tongues be put on a complete stall and placed on complete hold - until the next week when the church service meets again in the next service - and until the woman who is receiving prophecy or interpretation of the message from God while someone is speaking in tongues the church - and after the woman makes her journey back home with her husband when then and ( then - only ) at home - she can whisper shamefully into her husband’s ear and squeak out shamefully and disgracefully and in a shame - face - what prophecy that she has received from The Lord ? - concerning someone speaking in tongues during the service. ? St. Paul says here in - 1Co 14:5 I would that You all spake with tongues, but rather that prophecies = (προφητευων ): - - for greater is he that prophesieth = ( προφητευητε ) - - than he that speaking with tongues, except if not he interpreting, that the church may receive edifying. – all of the words in RED are added into the translation.

This would be a total contradiction if the manuscripts secluded the gift of prophecy - strictly to the male sex - The Bible says that women are also prophesying.

προφητευων -- prophecies - means the role of the individual performing - giving - prophecies προφητευητε -- prophecy - means the - prophecy message. - None of these prophets are males or are their roles ending in the masculine / male form of the word.

Also the word -- μειζων = " GREATER " - refers to the pronoun " YOUR " and not He or She sex. In modern Greek it means a Major in a military position. But of course most women’s bodies are not able to compete with men in a real battle situation – so according to the Trinitarian Theology - this must always mean the MALE SEX. – But the word suffice - is not referring to a male. Again – all of the words in RED are added into the translation.

Take a look this video that explains exactly how words are ending ( indicating ) the personal pronouns in the Greek language – to skip ahead to the personal possessive pronoun relating to Second person pronouns with no GENDER – such as - You or Yours and then on to First Person Pronouns = such as - ( Him / Her sexes - - Skip directly to 7:33 in the timeline to go directly to the proof. There is nothing in “ 1Co 14:5 “ - that refers to the male sex.

This movie explains the pronouns such as My, Yours, Him and Her . – the word is relating to the word Your - not He - not the male sex. There is no male sex in this verse. Also - in = 1Co 14:37 there is no first person possessive male sex is says - :37 If - any - man himself - think to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him know that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. - - The word that is claimed to be “ man “ is - the simply the combination of the two bass / root Greek words ” εἴ τις “ and it has nothing to do with a male or female
This word is not “ man / male sex “ it means ( IF ANYONE } I could go through and post every single word and in the verse and not a single word - is making reference to a MALE SEX . it would take another tremendous and huge long post. - this word is the meaning “ them “ and You or anyone can look it up ONLINE right now. Just go to this link - greek to english - Google Search
Simply enter in the word “ εἴ τις “

The whole New Testament is filled with the reference to a “ MAN “ when it could obviously be applied to the female also. I have already shown that the word that the Trinitarian Translators are claiming = Means SILENCE - is not the Greek word for “ silence Σιγάω “ . It is in fact a totally different word - meaning “ quietness “ - “ ησυχια “ -

You can go right now and look up the word “ quietness https://bit.ly/2Cedp0A = Enter the word = ησυχια
This is the exact word -
that is used – that is applied to women being clam and in Quietness and Calmness - while LEARNING 1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in “ Quietness or calmness “ with all subjection.

I have already proven that the manuscripts used this word to means “ quietness “ = ἡσυχία . - The Translators even correctly translated this word correctly as “ Quiet “ and “ peacefully “ – ONLY - silence and quietness are two different Greek words - 2Th 3:12 vindicates that - The Disorderly are to be in quietness. There is no male and female in this verse even suggested by the Trinitarian Translators themselves. For example here in Act 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: - “ Quiet “... -- But - If they are already keeping or being silent - how they possible be even more silent that being silent ? But the Greek word here is - “ Quiet “ The crown were Quiet - and they became even more Quiet when they heard the voice. They were not in silence and then became more silent. – this is a contradiction – impossible and not what the original manuscripts say in the Greek. The word is quiet “ = ἡσυχία .

The entire New Testament Trinitarian Translation is filled with hundreds of changes - where they add a male sex - with words such as He and Man - when these hundreds of verses are obviously referring to all believers, I could post hundreds of them that apply to women too - yet they are translated as a male sex. We can understand when the Bible refers to Yahoshua = as the SON OF MAN - but we know that this has nothing to do with the male sex - the same word is ANTHROPOID / ANTHROPOS – referring to all of human kind. Yet we never see Trinitarians calling Yahoshua the SON OF MALES nor do we call Yahoshua -- as “ our very own son. “ - the son of mankind - Is Yahoshua our very own son, also ? - since He is the son of humanity - the ANTHROPOID / ANTHROPOS. - - This is the same type of one step theology and mindset of the Trinitarian – especially Roman Catholics. - Yahoshua could be the SON OF MALES according to their translating style.. - I am not suggesting that Yahoshua be considered as - my very own son due to the fact that He is the son of man - or of “ Humanity “ - the son of Anthropos / Anthropoids = Humankind - but - This is how the composition of Trinitarian doctrine exists and how the translation of the Bible is made in many places. This is how the Trinitarian theology works . - -it seems as continual repeating of the same lines - as someone was repeating the statement saying " “ - well, he is - SON OF MAN - when we know that this elaborate focus of His identity in the Bible has nothing to do with the male sex - the word is ANTHROPOID / ANTHROPOS – referring to all of human kind. Yet we never see Trinitarians calling Yahoshua the SON OF MALES. But they continually attribute the church as to man or he - when there is no indication that it is male sex in the hundreds of verses.

This is the one step theology and mindset of the entire Trinitarian Translation itself – . - Yahoshua could possibly be the SON OF MALES according to this theology formula - But it seems that it is selective picking and choosing, all about when males are to be chosen “ he / male “ or just simply mankind.. This is all about personal feelings and sensations that are creating the authority of scriptures - a placing of full trust in a Spiritual Mother - - “ The Roman Catholic Church “ and Spiritual Father - - “ King James “
 
Last edited:
Loyal
I understand Your claim - oldhermit.

However, I ask that You please consider that - it could be You - who is only looking at the Bible message through the eyes, scope, lens or the CONTACT of the worldly standards and worldly concept of the role of women in the role and relationship of humanity and mankind.

May I also clarify the fact - that - if the women are prophesying and are " literal " prophets of God - and this is what a prophet does ( they prophecy to people ) and there were a number of female prophets in the Old and New Testament. But it was not a worldly, spontaneous and natural ability for women to travel abroad, traversing and trekking – wandering alone through the deserts, wildernesses and throughout the dangerous mobs of men, to give the prophecy of God to very many people outside of their own close circle of friends and family. There were many sexist and prejudice people with preconceived judgments and opinions and there was a whole world that was willed with abusers who raped and manipulated and even kidnapped and sexually sold women in sex trades - the moment that a woman stepped outside of their circle of protection.

Female prophets in the Bible - were always used and valued in the role of working for God by staying in the in a safe environment - and God used the MALE prophets to go around the entire countryside, across deserts, through wildernesses and on long life adventures that include all the details in entire multiple book of the Bible - and to serve with Kings and leaders in a time of war and in dangerous situations where the males usually were situated and needed - and women did not serve in these capacities.

Where is that You would imagine that women prophets ( who are giving prophecy ) in the Bible and of Today would be DOING their prophetic works and giving prophecy ? Would they doing this while they are at home doing the dishes or laundry ? - or sweeping the floor or changing diapers ? or baby sitting or sewing clothes or weaving baskets ?

Would Gods interpretation to a message in tongues be put on a complete stall and placed on complete hold - until the next week when the church service meets again in the next service - and until the woman who is receiving prophecy or interpretation of the message from God while someone is speaking in tongues the church - and after the woman makes her journey back home with her husband when then and ( then - only ) at home - she can whisper shamefully into her husband’s ear and squeak out shamefully and disgracefully and in a shame - face - what prophecy that she has received from The Lord ? - concerning someone speaking in tongues during the service. ? St. Paul says here in - 1Co 14:5 I would that You all spake with tongues, but rather that prophecies = (προφητευων ): - - for greater is he that prophesieth = ( προφητευητε ) - - than he that speaking with tongues, except if not he interpreting, that the church may receive edifying. – all of the words in RED are added into the translation.

This would be a total contradiction if the manuscripts secluded the gift of prophecy - strictly to the male sex - The Bible says that women are also prophesying.

προφητευων -- prophecies - means the role of the individual performing - giving - prophecies προφητευητε -- prophecy - means the - prophecy message. - None of these prophets are males or are their roles ending in the masculine / male form of the word.

Also the word -- μειζων = " GREATER " - refers to the pronoun " YOUR " and not He or She sex. In modern Greek it means a Major in a military position. But of course most women’s bodies are not able to compete with men in a real battle situation – so according to the Trinitarian Theology - this must always mean the MALE SEX. – But the word suffice - is not referring to a male. Again – all of the words in RED are added into the translation.

Take a look this video that explains exactly how words are ending ( indicating ) the personal pronouns in the Greek language – to skip ahead to the personal possessive pronoun relating to Second person pronouns with no GENDER – such as - You or Yours and then on to First Person Pronouns = such as - ( Him / Her sexes - - Skip directly to 7:33 in the timeline to go directly to the proof. There is nothing in “ 1Co 14:5 “ - that refers to the male sex.

This movie explains the pronouns such as My, Yours, Him and Her . – the word is relating to the word Your - not He - not the male sex. There is no male sex in this verse. Also - in = 1Co 14:37 there is no first person possessive male sex is says - :37 If - any - man himself - think to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him know that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. - - The word that is claimed to be “ man “ is - the simply the combination of the two bass / root Greek words ” εἴ τις “ and it has nothing to do with a male or female
This word is not “ man / male sex “ it means ( IF ANYONE } I could go through and post every single word and in the verse and not a single word - is making reference to a MALE SEX . it would take another tremendous and huge long post. - this word is the meaning “ them “ and You or anyone can look it up ONLINE right now. Just go to this link - greek to english - Google Search
Simply enter in the word “ εἴ τις “

The whole New Testament is filled with the reference to a “ MAN “ when it could obviously be applied to the female also. I have already shown that the word that the Trinitarian Translators are claiming = Means SILENCE - is not the Greek word for “ silence Σιγάω “ . It is in fact a totally different word - meaning “ quietness “ - “ ησυχια “ -

You can go right now and look up the word “ quietness https://bit.ly/2Cedp0A = Enter the word = ησυχια
This is the exact word -
that is used – that is applied to women being clam and in Quietness and Calmness - while LEARNING 1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in “ Quietness or calmness “ with all subjection.

I have already proven that the manuscripts used this word to means “ quietness “ = ἡσυχία . - The Translators even correctly translated this word correctly as “ Quiet “ and “ peacefully “ – ONLY - silence and quietness are two different Greek words - 2Th 3:12 vindicates that - The Disorderly are to be in quietness. There is no male and female in this verse even suggested by the Trinitarian Translators themselves. For example here in Act 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: - “ Quiet “... -- But - If they are already keeping or being silent - how they possible be even more silent that being silent ? But the Greek word here is - “ Quiet “ The crown were Quiet - and they became even more Quiet when they heard the voice. They were not in silence and then became more silent. – this is a contradiction – impossible and not what the original manuscripts say in the Greek. The word is quiet “ = ἡσυχία .

The entire New Testament Trinitarian Translation is filled with hundreds of changes - where they add a male sex - with words such as He and Man - when these hundreds of verses are obviously referring to all believers, I could post hundreds of them that apply to women too - yet they are translated as a male sex. We can understand when the Bible refers to Yahoshua = as the SON OF MAN - but we know that this has nothing to do with the male sex - the same word is ANTHROPOID / ANTHROPOS – referring to all of human kind. Yet we never see Trinitarians calling Yahoshua the SON OF MALES nor do we call Yahoshua -- as “ our very own son. “ - the son of mankind - Is Yahoshua our very own son, also ? - since He is the son of humanity - the ANTHROPOID / ANTHROPOS. - - This is the same type of one step theology and mindset of the Trinitarian – especially Roman Catholics. - Yahoshua could be the SON OF MALES according to their translating style.. - I am not suggesting that Yahoshua be considered as - my very own son due to the fact that He is the son of man - or of “ Humanity “ - the son of Anthropos / Anthropoids = Humankind - but - This is how the composition of Trinitarian doctrine exists and how the translation of the Bible is made in many places. This is how the Trinitarian theology works . - -it seems as continual repeating of the same lines - as someone was repeating the statement saying " “ - well, he is - SON OF MAN - when we know that this elaborate focus of His identity in the Bible has nothing to do with the male sex - the word is ANTHROPOID / ANTHROPOS – referring to all of human kind. Yet we never see Trinitarians calling Yahoshua the SON OF MALES. But they continually attribute the church as to man or he - when there is no indication that it is male sex in the hundreds of verses.

This is the one step theology and mindset of the entire Trinitarian Translation itself – . - Yahoshua could possibly be the SON OF MALES according to this theology formula - But it seems that it is selective picking and choosing, all about when males are to be chosen “ he / male “ or just simply mankind.. This is all about personal feelings and sensations that are creating the authority of scriptures - a placing of full trust in a Spiritual Mother - - “ The Roman Catholic Church “ and Spiritual Father - - “ King James “
Septorator....You still have not answered my question....What do you preceive as wrong with the trinitian belief? If the bible speaks of it, it's true.
 
Member
I understand Your claim - oldhermit.

However, I ask that You please consider that - it could be You - who is only looking at the Bible message through the eyes, scope, lens or the CONTACT of the worldly standards and worldly concept of the role of women in the role and relationship of humanity and mankind.

May I also clarify the fact - that - if the women are prophesying and are " literal " prophets of God - and this is what a prophet does ( they prophecy to people ) and there were a number of female prophets in the Old and New Testament. But it was not a worldly, spontaneous and natural ability for women to travel abroad, traversing and trekking – wandering alone through the deserts, wildernesses and throughout the dangerous mobs of men, to give the prophecy of God to very many people outside of their own close circle of friends and family. There were many sexist and prejudice people with preconceived judgments and opinions and there was a whole world that was willed with abusers who raped and manipulated and even kidnapped and sexually sold women in sex trades - the moment that a woman stepped outside of their circle of protection.

Female prophets in the Bible - were always used and valued in the role of working for God by staying in the in a safe environment - and God used the MALE prophets to go around the entire countryside, across deserts, through wildernesses and on long life adventures that include all the details in entire multiple book of the Bible - and to serve with Kings and leaders in a time of war and in dangerous situations where the males usually were situated and needed - and women did not serve in these capacities.

Where is that You would imagine that women prophets ( who are giving prophecy ) in the Bible and of Today would be DOING their prophetic works and giving prophecy ? Would they doing this while they are at home doing the dishes or laundry ? - or sweeping the floor or changing diapers ? or baby sitting or sewing clothes or weaving baskets ?

Would Gods interpretation to a message in tongues be put on a complete stall and placed on complete hold - until the next week when the church service meets again in the next service - and until the woman who is receiving prophecy or interpretation of the message from God while someone is speaking in tongues the church - and after the woman makes her journey back home with her husband when then and ( then - only ) at home - she can whisper shamefully into her husband’s ear and squeak out shamefully and disgracefully and in a shame - face - what prophecy that she has received from The Lord ? - concerning someone speaking in tongues during the service. ? St. Paul says here in - 1Co 14:5 I would that You all spake with tongues, but rather that prophecies = (προφητευων ): - - for greater is he that prophesieth = ( προφητευητε ) - - than he that speaking with tongues, except if not he interpreting, that the church may receive edifying. – all of the words in RED are added into the translation.

This would be a total contradiction if the manuscripts secluded the gift of prophecy - strictly to the male sex - The Bible says that women are also prophesying.

προφητευων -- prophecies - means the role of the individual performing - giving - prophecies προφητευητε -- prophecy - means the - prophecy message. - None of these prophets are males or are their roles ending in the masculine / male form of the word.

Also the word -- μειζων = " GREATER " - refers to the pronoun " YOUR " and not He or She sex. In modern Greek it means a Major in a military position. But of course most women’s bodies are not able to compete with men in a real battle situation – so according to the Trinitarian Theology - this must always mean the MALE SEX. – But the word suffice - is not referring to a male. Again – all of the words in RED are added into the translation.

Take a look this video that explains exactly how words are ending ( indicating ) the personal pronouns in the Greek language – to skip ahead to the personal possessive pronoun relating to Second person pronouns with no GENDER – such as - You or Yours and then on to First Person Pronouns = such as - ( Him / Her sexes - - Skip directly to 7:33 in the timeline to go directly to the proof. There is nothing in “ 1Co 14:5 “ - that refers to the male sex.

This movie explains the pronouns such as My, Yours, Him and Her . – the word is relating to the word Your - not He - not the male sex. There is no male sex in this verse. Also - in = 1Co 14:37 there is no first person possessive male sex is says - :37 If - any - man himself - think to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him know that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. - - The word that is claimed to be “ man “ is - the simply the combination of the two bass / root Greek words ” εἴ τις “ and it has nothing to do with a male or female
This word is not “ man / male sex “ it means ( IF ANYONE } I could go through and post every single word and in the verse and not a single word - is making reference to a MALE SEX . it would take another tremendous and huge long post. - this word is the meaning “ them “ and You or anyone can look it up ONLINE right now. Just go to this link - greek to english - Google Search
Simply enter in the word “ εἴ τις “

The whole New Testament is filled with the reference to a “ MAN “ when it could obviously be applied to the female also. I have already shown that the word that the Trinitarian Translators are claiming = Means SILENCE - is not the Greek word for “ silence Σιγάω “ . It is in fact a totally different word - meaning “ quietness “ - “ ησυχια “ -

You can go right now and look up the word “ quietness https://bit.ly/2Cedp0A = Enter the word = ησυχια
This is the exact word -
that is used – that is applied to women being clam and in Quietness and Calmness - while LEARNING 1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in “ Quietness or calmness “ with all subjection.

I have already proven that the manuscripts used this word to means “ quietness “ = ἡσυχία . - The Translators even correctly translated this word correctly as “ Quiet “ and “ peacefully “ – ONLY - silence and quietness are two different Greek words - 2Th 3:12 vindicates that - The Disorderly are to be in quietness. There is no male and female in this verse even suggested by the Trinitarian Translators themselves. For example here in Act 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: - “ Quiet “... -- But - If they are already keeping or being silent - how they possible be even more silent that being silent ? But the Greek word here is - “ Quiet “ The crown were Quiet - and they became even more Quiet when they heard the voice. They were not in silence and then became more silent. – this is a contradiction – impossible and not what the original manuscripts say in the Greek. The word is quiet “ = ἡσυχία .

The entire New Testament Trinitarian Translation is filled with hundreds of changes - where they add a male sex - with words such as He and Man - when these hundreds of verses are obviously referring to all believers, I could post hundreds of them that apply to women too - yet they are translated as a male sex. We can understand when the Bible refers to Yahoshua = as the SON OF MAN - but we know that this has nothing to do with the male sex - the same word is ANTHROPOID / ANTHROPOS – referring to all of human kind. Yet we never see Trinitarians calling Yahoshua the SON OF MALES nor do we call Yahoshua -- as “ our very own son. “ - the son of mankind - Is Yahoshua our very own son, also ? - since He is the son of humanity - the ANTHROPOID / ANTHROPOS. - - This is the same type of one step theology and mindset of the Trinitarian – especially Roman Catholics. - Yahoshua could be the SON OF MALES according to their translating style.. - I am not suggesting that Yahoshua be considered as - my very own son due to the fact that He is the son of man - or of “ Humanity “ - the son of Anthropos / Anthropoids = Humankind - but - This is how the composition of Trinitarian doctrine exists and how the translation of the Bible is made in many places. This is how the Trinitarian theology works . - -it seems as continual repeating of the same lines - as someone was repeating the statement saying " “ - well, he is - SON OF MAN - when we know that this elaborate focus of His identity in the Bible has nothing to do with the male sex - the word is ANTHROPOID / ANTHROPOS – referring to all of human kind. Yet we never see Trinitarians calling Yahoshua the SON OF MALES. But they continually attribute the church as to man or he - when there is no indication that it is male sex in the hundreds of verses.

This is the one step theology and mindset of the entire Trinitarian Translation itself – . - Yahoshua could possibly be the SON OF MALES according to this theology formula - But it seems that it is selective picking and choosing, all about when males are to be chosen “ he / male “ or just simply mankind.. This is all about personal feelings and sensations that are creating the authority of scriptures - a placing of full trust in a Spiritual Mother - - “ The Roman Catholic Church “ and Spiritual Father - - “ King James “
I wish you would keep your points short and to the point. I have no intention of reading all of this post. Your treatment of Greek is appalling, most of which has no bearing on 1 Cor 14. Let me spell it out for you. In verses 26, regarding the speaking in tongues, revelation, psalms, and interpretation, Paul address the men saying, “each one,” (ἕκαστος) this adjective is nominative, masculine, singular thus, he is speaking to the men. This is why the translators insert the masculine pronouns, and rightly so. In verse 27 he says, “if anyone,” this too is nominative, masculine, singular. This is then reinforced in verse 28 by “let him be silent" while another is speaking and "let him speak to himself.” All of this is in regard to the “each one” - nominative, masculine, singular, who has “a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” All of the adjectives in the verses are masculine spelling. Then, in verses 29-33, Paul address the issue of prophesying. Here again, Paul is addressing only the men using the noun προφῆται which is nominative, masculine, plural. To emphasize the fact that he is speaking concerning the MEN who were prophesying in the assembly, in verses 33 and 34 he commands the women to keep silent in this as well - σιγάτωσαν. The reason they were not permitted to speak was because it is improper for them to do so. Paul then ends all of this by saying, This practice is to be observed in "ALL the Churches of the saints" and that,these things are the Lord's commandment.”
It is all a simple matter of honoring the grammatical structure of the text which is provided by the Holy Spirit.
 
Active
@septorator -- So -- there is actually a New Testament Trinitarian Translation?! Maybe you should get a New Testament KJV or NKJ -- if they come in only the New Testament. Maybe just get yourself an entire Bible / NKJV. Or an ESV.
 
Active
@septorator -- just Googled that -- no such translation listed. However, there Is Trinitarianism compared to Binitarianism and Monoarchianism and there are two subdivisions under That heading. And, as 'oldhermit' suggested -- Please shorten your responses by a Bunch.

God's Word definitely teaches the trinity/ Godhead = God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit.

In Scripture -- God is referred to in the male gender -- 'Father' / He -- Jesus Christ obviously was born a male child. And God is Also a Spirit.

And there Are numerous passages that use the term 'male' to refer to both men and women -- whatever word I'm thinking of -- is used to refer to both male and female.

And it's Also true that 'way back then' -- it was the men who inherited property -- women really had No rights. With the geneologies -- men begetting other men's names. But it's obvious that women were there also in order for the next generation to come into being.

the words 'silent' and 'quiet' -- essentially means the same thing.

So - exactly what are you having a problem With?!
 
Member
I do not have a problem with the Trinity. I was attempting to demonstrate that The Bible has a problem with the Trinity.

My response to you and others - was deleted or perhaps it just never actually went through the path process of web code - of being posted / processed - / not sure. Regardless there no possible way for me to discuss this with someone when they openly declare that they are not going to read even my response and write a whole response to me about something that I never mentioned, pretending that it was something related to my post. Then I have to add extra details to greatly lengthen the response - to also cover what was claimed that I had said - concerning what I did and did not say about something that no one even wishes to actually address or discuss. A never-ending circle that is intended to go nowhere as fast it can get there. Usually, when one has no scriptures for their faith and claims, they usually do this. it is the only choice available. Every detail that undermines their claim becomes an act of unfriendliness and aggression in their mind. Changing the subject becomes the only goal. But I thank you for replying, many here are very kind and interesting. Please have a wonderful day.
 
Active
How can the Bible possibly have a problem with the trinity -- after all -- that's how we Got the Bible and that's how we get salvation.
 
Active
In 1 Cor. 14:34 the Apostle Paul’s letter states: “…the women should keep silent in the assemblies. For they are not permitted to speak but should be in submission, as the Law also says.” There are several major problems with this statement.

First, nowhere does the Jewish Law forbid women to speak in public gatherings. Paul, being a well-educated Jew, certainly would have known this. In fact, there was a law on the books that did forbid women to speak, vote and exercise authority over men by holding public office. It was not a Jewish, but a Roman law. These words would sound far more credible if someone else, other than the Jewish Apostle Paul, had written them.
In context, brother, Paul referred to the law as a commandment from the Lord. Read it again.

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 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. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Verse 36 is why women are not allowed to speak in the churches and Paul goes on in verse 37 that what he teaches here is a commandment from the Lord. If you wonder what Law Paul was referring to... we go to Timothy.

1 Timothy 1:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The explanation again is not referring to anything of Roman law, but an incident at the fall of man in the scripture for why it is a commandment from the Lord.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,

Second, on numerous occasions throughout his travels and letters, the Apostle Paul affirmed the ministry of women (Rom 16:3-4; 1 Cor. 16:19; cf. Acts 16:11-40; 18:26). The centrality of the Shemah – the Oneness of Israel’s God, informed Paul’s theology when he wrote that in Christ-following assemblies there was no place for segregation or discrimination: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28)
Women are permitted to speak in outward ministry or in the mission field, but not in church.

In 1 Corinthians 11:5, he wrote that a woman’s head must be covered while she is engaged in speaking in tongues or prophesying in a public assembly. The question was not, therefore, if a woman could speak and teach, but how it should be done in a way that would be right before God, angels and the people of Corinth.
You are applying that verse to when she is speaking in tongues or prophesying as in a public assembly but that is not what that verse says. You are forgetting that such reference can be applied to women when they are in the mission field and not in the assembly if we are to keep in context of the commandment from the Lord for women not to speak in the assembly in 1 Corinthians 14:34-37 which is in the same book as your refernce has been cited, but not applied right.

When we read Paul’s letters we need to keep in mind that 1 Corinthians was not the beginning of this correspondence. Paul wrote at least one letter to the Corinthians prior to this (1 Cor. 5:9) and the Corinthian leadership had also written to him (1 Cor. 7:1). It is therefore highly probable that the statement in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is a quotation from a letter that the Corinthian male leadership had addressed to Paul. It was their proposal on how to bring order into the disruptive practice of some women in the congregation as they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Paul, however, disagreed.

If this text is viewed as a quotation, then the challenge in 1 Cor. 14:36 that Paul brings to the male leadership makes perfect sense:

“Was it from you (masculine) that the word of God first went forth?! Or has it come to you (masculine) only?!”

The all-male leadership of the Corinthian congregation was not to forbid (women) to speak in tongues and themselves were to be encouraged to prophesy just as the women among them already were doing:

“Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.” (1 Cor. 14:39-40)

Paul’s solution, therefore, was not to exclude half of the congregation from exercising the gifts of the Spirit, but rather to make sure that it was done in a respectful, proper and orderly fashion.

Was Paul right about women? Absolutely! His Corinthian opponents were not.
I believe you are reaching when Paul was defending what he was saying as a commandment from the Lord way before he issued the other topic of the use of tongues being done in decency and in order and not to forbid men to speak in tongues. Indeed, there are to be 2 or 3 speak in tongues, while another interpret just as 2 or 3 are to prophesy while another judge it. All men because the word of the Lord came first to men and not to women and it is a commandment from the Lord for women to be silent because they are to be submissive to the men in the assembly as well as at home in being leaders and not allow a women to lead nor teach seeing how that was Adam's sin for harkening unto Eve's voice.

That means the Holy Spirit is not causing women to speak in tongues in the assembly, regardless of the supernatural tongue being real to them for why believers should discern the tongues and not just the spirits. Such tongue is always linked to receiving what they believe was the Holy Spirit apart from salvation and that is why that tongue along with that spirit cannot be of Him when God's gift of tongues is for speaking unto the people ( 1 Corinthians 14:20-21 KJV ) and it is not to serve as a sign of having received the holy Spirit apart from salvation ( 1 Corinthians 14:22 KJV ) and certainly never for private use as Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 12:7 KJV so as to avoid the appearance of this 1 Corinthians 12:19-21 KJV so that every one speak the same thing and have the same judgment as per 1 Corinthians 1:9-10 KJV and not defer from this testimony that ALL believers are to have of that ONE drink of the One Spirit at our salvation 1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV.

So read what Paul is actually saying and stop trying to wiggle it out as if Paul is not saying that is teh commandment from the Lord when he pointed to why it is the commandment from the Lord.. because of the fall of man, TWICE.
 
Loyal
In context, brother, Paul referred to the law as a commandment from the Lord. Read it again.

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 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. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Verse 36 is why women are not allowed to speak in the churches and Paul goes on in verse 37 that what he teaches here is a commandment from the Lord. If you wonder what Law Paul was referring to... we go to Timothy.

1 Timothy 1:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The explanation again is not referring to anything of Roman law, but an incident at the fall of man in the scripture for why it is a commandment from the Lord.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,



Women are permitted to speak in outward ministry or in the mission field, but not in church.



You are applying that verse to when she is speaking in tongues or prophesying as in a public assembly but that is not what that verse says. You are forgetting that such reference can be applied to women when they are in the mission field and not in the assembly if we are to keep in context of the commandment from the Lord for women not to speak in the assembly in 1 Corinthians 14:34-37 which is in the same book as your refernce has been cited, but not applied right.



I believe you are reaching when Paul was defending what he was saying as a commandment from the Lord way before he issued the other topic of the use of tongues being done in decency and in order and not to forbid men to speak in tongues. Indeed, there are to be 2 or 3 speak in tongues, while another interpret just as 2 or 3 are to prophesy while another judge it. All men because the word of the Lord came first to men and not to women and it is a commandment from the Lord for women to be silent because they are to be submissive to the men in the assembly as well as at home in being leaders and not allow a women to lead nor teach seeing how that was Adam's sin for harkening unto Eve's voice.

That means the Holy Spirit is not causing women to speak in tongues in the assembly, regardless of the supernatural tongue being real to them for why believers should discern the tongues and not just the spirits. Such tongue is always linked to receiving what they believe was the Holy Spirit apart from salvation and that is why that tongue along with that spirit cannot be of Him when God's gift of tongues is for speaking unto the people ( 1 Corinthians 14:20-21 KJV ) and it is not to serve as a sign of having received the holy Spirit apart from salvation ( 1 Corinthians 14:22 KJV ) and certainly never for private use as Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 12:7 KJV so as to avoid the appearance of this 1 Corinthians 12:19-21 KJV so that every one speak the same thing and have the same judgment as per 1 Corinthians 1:9-10 KJV and not defer from this testimony that ALL believers are to have of that ONE drink of the One Spirit at our salvation 1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV.

So read what Paul is actually saying and stop trying to wiggle it out as if Paul is not saying that is teh commandment from the Lord when he pointed to why it is the commandment from the Lord.. because of the fall of man, TWICE.
Only two points. First...Your spiel here is based on a single verse, again, that is taken out of context....Second, again, is the fact that the law says no such thing..

Now as I have said before, you need Context! A sinlge verse has NO context. For the context you'll need to know what is going on there, you'll need to know what is being talked about, what is being said, and it has to stay in that context or all you're spouting is lie.....I've said it before, and just for you, I'll say it again..."A text without a context is a pretext, or a lie"
 
Active
Only two points. First...Your spiel here is based on a single verse, again, that is taken out of context....Second, again, is the fact that the law says no such thing..

Now as I have said before, you need Context! A sinlge verse has NO context. For the context you'll need to know what is going on there, you'll need to know what is being talked about, what is being said, and it has to stay in that context or all you're spouting is lie.....I've said it before, and just for you, I'll say it again..."A text without a context is a pretext, or a lie"
It is obvious that you judge by a standard you are not going by, and that is why any further discussion will always be at an impasse. Only God can show you your error for why you are refusing to believe what Paul is saying and why he reference Adam as to what law he was referring to as a commandment coming from the Lord for why women are to be silent IN the assembly. So we agree to disagree once again, brother. There is no way to proceed in our discussion if you just do not want to believe that tongues are not for private use as gained by receiving what you assume was the Holy Spirit apart from salvation, let alone tongues being manifested in women in the assembly.
 
Loyal
It is obvious that you judge by a standard you are not going by, and that is why any further discussion will always be at an impasse. Only God can show you your error for why you are refusing to believe what Paul is saying and why he reference Adam as to what law he was referring to as a commandment coming from the Lord for why women are to be silent IN the assembly. So we agree to disagree once again, brother. There is no way to proceed in our discussion if you just do not want to believe that tongues are not for private use as gained by receiving what you assume was the Holy Spirit apart from salvation, let alone tongues being manifested in women in the assembly.
I refuse what you are claiming that Paul is saying...not what the Word is saying. You need to let the Holy Spirit teach you...instead of studying it intellectually.
 
Active
I refuse what you are claiming that Paul is saying...not what the Word is saying. You need to let the Holy Spirit teach you...instead of studying it intellectually.
You are free to refuse, but by God's grace & help, I have stated the truth as I have read it plainly in the scripture while you ignore why Paul was referecing Adam and Eve for why women are not to teach in 1 Timothy 1:11-13 KJV and thus what he had meant about the word of God NOT coming out of women first in 1 Corinthians 14:34-37 KJV for why men are to lead and preach the word of God in the assembly. That is how sure I am of rightly dividing the word of truth, thanks to Him.
 
Loyal
You are free to refuse, but by God's grace & help, I have stated the truth as I have read it plainly in the scripture while you ignore why Paul was referecing Adam and Eve for why women are not to teach in 1 Timothy 1:11-13 KJV and thus what he had meant about the word of God NOT coming out of women first in 1 Corinthians 14:34-37 KJV for why men are to lead and preach the word of God in the assembly. That is how sure I am of rightly dividing the word of truth, thanks to Him.
Context!! Again you use partial sentences to prove an erroneous point....1 Timothy 1:11-13 Here is your complete sentence....
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;


9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,


10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

And that says nothing about women keeping silent.

So Paul reads off the question in 1 Corinthians 14:34-37
Question; 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

Now Paul was very well educated and he KNEW that the law did not contain any such command about women keeping silent.... But he answered the question;
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?


37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

JesusIs4Me I will say it again. THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS WOMEN ARE TO KEEP SILENT I do hope you'ver read it this time. Paul was answering questions, which you would know if you went after the context of the verses you're slinging around so cavalierly.
 
Loyal
The Law of Scriptural Interpretation
Every Scripture must be interpreted in the light of what other Scripture says on the same subject—it must harmonize with all other Scripture. Much error has resulted from ignoring this law of interpretation. That's how people have gotten into difficulty on our subject, as well as others. The interpretation we put on our text Scriptures must harmonize with all other Scripture.
You can lift verses out of their settings, ignore the law of interpretation, and make them say anything you want them to say.
There have been some wonderful men, with beautiful spirits of love, baptized with the Holy Ghost, who were great witnesses and blessings to others—for a while. But then they got off into error because they did not interpret Scripture
in the light of other Scriptures.


If an interpretation doesn't harmonize with all other Scriptures, then the interpretation is wrong.


1 CORINTHIANS 11:5
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
Paul is talking here about women praying and prophesying in church. Some people think that to prophesy means to preach. And really it is one phase of preaching. If while you preach you say
something under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, you are prophesying. Now, was Paul illogical enough—especially writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost—to tell women they could pray and prophesy (or even preach) in the 11th chapter—and then come over to the 14th chapter and tell them to be quiet?


ACTS 2:16, 17
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of
my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall
dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens, I will pour out in those
days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.




Hundreds of years before the day of Pentecost, the Prophet Joel prophesied it saying, "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh . . . " (Joel 2:28).
And Peter said on the day of Pentecost, "This is the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy." We still live in that dispensation today—the Holy Ghost dispensation. God
has poured out of His Spirit upon all flesh—which includes women as well as men. " ... your sons and your daughters shall prophesy... . " The daughters will prophesy as well as the sons







ACTS 1:13, 14
13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
There were 120 individuals—both men and women—gathered together in the upper room at Jerusalem. When Pentecost was fully come, the Spirit descended on them and they were all filled and all spoke with tongues— aloud. That Pentecost morning was one glorious morning when the women were not silent!
"Yes," someone might say, "but that was in the upper room." They were having church just as much as you can have church in any auditorium. The room doesn't make the church. It's the individuals gathered together to pray and to worship God that make it
church—even if it's in your living room.



LUKE 1:39-42
39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill-country with haste, into a city of Juda; 40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
41 And it came to pass, that when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice.... When the Spirit of God came upon Elizabeth, she spoke out with a loud voice and began to prophesy. The Lord gave her a message. When the Spirit of God came upon Mary, she spoke out the beautiful prophecy you can read in Luke 1:46-55.
"Yeah," someone says, "but that was in the home. It's all right in the home." When the Spirit of God moves as people worship Him, in your home, your living room, or the church building, you're having church. And when the Spirit of God moves, as far as God is concerned, there is really neither male nor female. If the Spirit of God comes on a woman, I'm not going to tell her to be quiet, are you? If she's preaching a sermon, I'm not going to tell her to hush, are you? To do so, is to do despite unto the grace of God.
LUKE 2:36-38
36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity;
37 And she was a widow of about four-score and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. The Bible calls Anna a prophetess—which is simply the feminine form of prophet. Anna was speaking right out in what we would call the house of God. Paul certainly would not prevent women from speaking messages given to them by the Spirit. For the Lord said, "Your daughters shall prophesy." Paul could not countermand the Lord's order by saying, "The daughters shall not prophesy," could he? And neither can any other man.
I'm convinced Paul was saying, "I suffer not a wife to teach or usurp authority over her husband." Yet, if the husband were not a Christian, he wouldn't know anything to teach his wife, and she might have to teach him. She might even have to take authority which is not really hers—because children need to be taught in the home. If the husband is not going to take his place and read the Bible and pray with the children, the wife should. And she is not disobeying God by doing so. But even leaving it as the King James translates it, "I suffer not a woman to teach," it might not have been advisable in that day and in that part of the Roman Empire for women to teach. In our times though, even those who take a strong stand for keeping women quiet in the church services have yielded enough to let them teach in Sunday schools, and in public schools. "Paul means though," somebody says, "that women should not teach men." Priscilla and Aquilla were Paul's companions in whom he had great delight. And Priscilla, a woman, taught Apollos.




ACTS 18:26
26 And he [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom, when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
"Well, it's all right to teach one man," some might argue. If it's all right to teach one man, it's all right to teach a dozen. That would be like arguing it's all right to steal one dollar, but wrong to steal five. "They can teach all right, anywhere else but in church." Who said so? They were having church. The three were gathered in His name. Jesus didn't specify where they had to be gathered.
PSALM 68:11
11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it. This is a prophetic Psalm. It is talking about the Good News—the gospel— and the day in which we are living. It has troubled some of the opposers of the ministry of women to know that the Hebrew word translated company is feminine—and not just a word of feminine gender, but a word which means women. Here is the way the Isaac Leeser translation from the original Hebrew reads: PSALM 68:11 (LEESER)
11 The Lord gave happy tidings: they are published by the female messengers, a numerous host. After all, the first one to go tell—and to preach means to go tell—the good tidings of the Resurrection of Jesus was a woman. Jesus told her, "Go tell... . " They've been telling it ever since—and they should keep on telling it.

I could go on?
 
Loyal
This right up there with woman shall not shave her head and man shall not have long hair.

These are customs of people.
Blessings
 
Active
Well -- women shouldn't shave their heads and men should not have long hair. Now the Only exception with women and shaved heads is those on chemo treatments who've lost their hair.
And, in church, during a service -- Everyone needs to be quiet in order to hear what the pastor is sharing. Questions can be asked before or after the service. It's courteous.
 
Loyal
Well -- women shouldn't shave their heads and men should not have long hair. Now the Only exception with women and shaved heads is those on chemo treatments who've lost their hair.
And, in church, during a service -- Everyone needs to be quiet in order to hear what the pastor is sharing. Questions can be asked before or after the service. It's courteous.
LOLOL Good answer Sue
 
Loyal
Well -- women shouldn't shave their heads and men should not have long hair. Now the Only exception with women and shaved heads is those on chemo treatments who've lost their hair
Within the writing Paul says that is their custom.
The entire ordeal came about because the temple prostitutes shaved their heads to identify themselves but that brought some embarrassing situations as these woman were being saved and attending the church.

So they had ALL women Cover their heads during worship and such. This kept their identity safe as their hair grew out.

Now that's the truth
Blessings
 
Loyal
1 CORINTHIANS 11:3-16
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and
the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered,
dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head
uncovered, dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were
shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a
shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the
image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the
man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because
of the angels.
11 Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the
woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the
woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: Is it comely that a woman pray unto God
uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it
is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given
her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God.
A hasty reading of this great text would lead one to believe that Paul laid
upon all women, everywhere, and for all time, the command to wear the veil,
or to keep their heads covered in church services. Many conscientious
women today fear to remove their hats in church lest they violate this
passage. The crux of the matter hinges on this question: Is it binding
everywhere, and for all times? Let's examine this Scripture carefully then, for
if it binds us now, we should obey it.
Upon what does Paul base his argument for women covering their heads in a
religious service? First, he does not say it is irreverent. Nor does he say it is
displeasing to God. If he had, there would have been no escape from this
command.
Deference to Head
In chapter 2 we discussed what Paul said about husbands being the head of
their wives. This is the basis of Paul's argument. Again we'll read it from
Weymouth for clarity:
1 CORINTHIANS 11:3-7 (WEYMOUTH) I would have you know,
however, that of every man Christ is the head, that the head of a woman
is her husband, and that the head of Christ is God. A man who wears a
veil when praying or prophesying dishonours his head; but a woman
who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head,
for she is exactly the same as a woman who is shorn. If a woman will not
wear a veil, let her also cut off her hair. But since it is a dishonour to a
woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her wear a veil. For a
man ought not to have a veil on his head, since he is the image and glory
of God; while woman is the glory of man.
In our country, we instinctively sense the impropriety of men covering their
heads in religious services. I've been in services where a man would come in
and sit down with his hat still on, and one of the ushers would go to him and
ask him to remove it.
Among the Jews, however, the opposite custom prevails. In Orthodox Jewish
synagogues even now, men are required to keep their heads covered.
When we visited the Muslim Temple in Jerusalem, we pulled off our shoes
and left them at the door. In Muslim countries, the worshipers remove, not
their hats, but their shoes.
The Lord said to Moses, " . . . put off thy shoes from off thy feet; for the place
whereon thou standest is holy ground" (Exodus 3:5).
Nothing was said about his headgear.
Why then does Paul protest against men praying or prophesying with heads
covered? This will come out clearly later, but suffice it to say here that the
veil, or covering, was an acknowledgment someone visibly present was his
head.
Paul said a woman who prayed or prophesied with her head uncovered
dishonored her head. He didn't say she dishonoured God, but her head, her
husband who was present.
The veil was a symbol of subjection to her husband. So thoroughly was it
recognized as a badge setting forth the wife's private and subordinate position
that a significant rite in marriage was the assuming of the veil.
Marcus Dodd said, "The laying aside of the veil was therefore an expression,
on the part of Christian women, that their being assumed as members of
Christ's body raised them out of the position of deference and subordination
...." (For further information, see Acknowledgment.) This is the significance
of the bridal veil still worn at weddings. And the custom of "taking the veil"
lingers in the ceremony of those becoming a nun, a bride of heaven, in a
marriage to Christ.
The Greek word exousia, translated power in verse 10, is also translated
variously as authority, liberty, and in the plural as authorities and potentates.
Let's paraphrase that verse then, which sounds so strange to our ears, like
this, "For this reason (because of the facts stated in verses 8 and 9) ought the
wife to have a sign of her husband's authority, a covering on her head,
because of the angels." Here again, it is not a woman question, but a husbandand-wife question. Out of deference (honor) for Christ, the man should not
cover his head. Out of honor for her husband, a wife should cover her head—
 

Similar threads


Top