women to keep silent

[Guest HIS girl]

Paul had a wife and was divorced??

THAT - I have N E V E R heard....!!!

That is because it is not in the Bible. We have no real evidence that Paul was married, much less divorced.

I have heard some Christians say that Paul was a woman hater.....now I truly wonder how this could be interpereted - simply because he states it would be better to remain unmarried...for the sheer fact you can serve God without the aspect of wife/family responsibilities.

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul had a wife and was divorced??

THAT - I have N E V E R heard....!!!

That is because it is not in the Bible. We have no real evidence that Paul was married, much less divorced.

I have heard some Christians say that Paul was a woman hater.....now I truly wonder how this could be interpereted - simply because he states it would be better to remain unmarried...for the sheer fact you can serve God without the aspect of wife/family responsibilities.

Yeah, Paul always gets misunderstood, namely because people tend to read today's modern western Christianity back into the New Testament. They want to believe that OUR Christianity and how it is expressed is how they lived and thought 2,000 years in the ancient near east.

Paul was a man of his times. He was not a woman hater and nothing about his training as a Rabbi would have produced hatred for women. Paul hails from a different part of the world and a culture that is radically different than ours.

What I see happening is that people will take certain things Paul said or did and supply their own values to what Paul said or did. Instead of taking the time to ask questions, or learn about the culture and why they did the things did, and so forth, they start assigning values and motives that were not a part of the thinking or culture and suddenly, Paul is woman hater or other nonsense.

It only serves to highlight the arrogance and historical illiteracy of 20th century western Christianity.

[Guest HIS girl]

I completely agree with your thoughts in that regard : )

[Guest shiloh357]

1Co 14:34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.

1Co 14:35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.

1Co 11:13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1Co 11:16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I was doing my Bible study and i am not able to understand if Paul gave this prohibition for a woman to keep silent or not to teach in public due to a tradional Jewish prohibition against women speaking in public. Is this the same prohibition for women to have short hair or the veil themselves? Why is this commandment not enforced in modern day churches?

Can I have a Jewish perspective on this?

One thing to keep in mind when reading the epistles is that there is advice Paul is giving which was really meant only for that audience.

Each congregation had its own set of particular problems and needs and Paul was addressing those. These were real people and they had real obstacles and real questions and struggles with things that we don't necessarily deal with today, like meat ssacrificed to idols, temple prostitution, and so forth.

That does not mean we cannot take spiritual instruction from these things. I am not saying that these things are totally irrelevant, but we need to be able to distinguish between when Paul was addressing issues specific to a given congregation and when Paul is making general doctrinal statements.

Everything in the Bible is relevant in that we can take spiritual principles and instruction from any part of the Bible, but the problems start when we take things that pertain to specific struggle that was particular to the original audience and begin trying to implement that instruction in our congregation absent of the original problem such instruction was meant to address.

We need to keep in mind that we have the benefit of reading ALL of Paul letters, and we have the entire Bible at our fingertips but the original audience didn't. This gives us the false impression that everthing we read in the Bible is meant to be applied in the most absolute pragmatic sense and that really creates some goofy theology, not to metion wierd church services (think: snake handlers).

We need to be careful not to apply Scripture in a wooden face-value approach, but rather use our commonsense as well as the leading of the Holy Spirit to ascertain WHY Paul said what he said and who it was actually meant for in a practical sense.

Paul said in one place to "greet one another with a holy kiss." In that culture, which Paul was familiar, kissing took on a different meaning than it does in western culture today. Can you imagine the problems that can come from Christians kissing each other in church today??? Would anyone want their husband or wife kissing other people given what a kiss means to us today?

Not everything in the Bible was meant to establish doctrine. That point should not be lost on us today.

[book_wirm]

...we need to be able to distinguish between when Paul was addressing issues specific to a given congregation and when Paul is making general doctrinal statements.

Paul said in one place to "greet one another with a holy kiss." In that culture

Not everything in the Bible was meant to establish doctrine. That point should not be lost on us today.

Shiloh,

I can appreciate your statement and I agree with the spirit of it so I hope you don't think I am being argumentative by replying. I'm only offering a different perspective. Like I've said before, this [head covering] is not a "faith breaking" issue for me and I have no interest in contention over it.

I am familiar with the view that head covering and female silence were instructions from Paul to specific churches/people due to the social customs in which the lived. Obviously, since the women in my family do practice covering and silence, I do not see the commands relating to those things as tied to a specific time, region, and/or set of customs. This is because Paul defends/develops the instruction with universal supports, not geographically specific ones. What I mean is, Paul does not say women should cover because pagan women in the area of Corinth may go around shaved or so the Christian women in Corinth would not be confused with temple prostitutes. Rather, Paul defends the instruction by appealing to the honor due to a woman's head [the man, universal-regardless of region/time], the example of nature [again universal-regardless of region/time], and because of the angels [connected to no region/time].

In this manner, his instruction on covering differs greatly from the "holy kiss". Paul never develops that instruction into a teaching, defending and developing it. I agree with you wholeheartedly, the holy kiss was nothing more than the customary greeting for that time and place.

Eric

[stevehut]

When did it become a paternal duty? Was it because men kept women from learning?

What does this have to do with anything?

[BFP]

In the church I grew up in women did not speak in church. They chatted before the service, but during the service women kept silent. Only men preach. Women however have other roles in the church. They take nursery duty and teach Sunday school to children up to preteen, then the men teach. I truly believe this to be the right way. When I met my husband I almost died t when I noticed that his mother took up headship in the home. She says grace before meals, and he expects me to do the same. I have a very hard time with this idea so grace before meals doesn't get said much around here...but I do thank the Lord silently.

I agree that MEN have to stand up and be men again. You guys just let women beat you all to nothing.

That is a destructive legalistic view. Men should be doing nursery duty, and teaching children in Sunday School also! What a poor model for our children that teaches them that women are inferior as leaders in the faith, when God never teaches us this, and Jesus never demonstrated it, nor did Paul teach it.

That didn't teach me that women were inferior at all! What it taught me was that everyone has a special place in God's eyes.

[Smalcald]

Maybe the problem is that there is too much talking in church in general, men and women.

[Guest shiloh357]

I am familiar with the view that head covering and female silence were instructions from Paul to specific churches/people due to the social customs in which the lived. Obviously, since the women in my family do practice covering and silence, I do not see the commands relating to those things as tied to a specific time, region, and/or set of customs.

I hear where you are coming from. Believe me, I have nothing at all against anyone practicing the headcovering. I know some very sweet aged saints of God who I love dearly who practice this and I would never disparage women wearing headcoverings. I can fellowship with almost anyone who truly loves the Lord. I am very respectful and go out of my way to accomodate such customs.

This is because Paul defends/develops the instruction with universal supports, not geographically specific ones. What I mean is, Paul does not say women should cover because pagan women in the area of Corinth may go around shaved or so the Christian women in Corinth would not be confused with temple prostitutes.

Well, there are alot of things relating to customs that Paul does not elaborate on because given his original audience, he didn't have to.

Let me draw you a quick analogy. If you and I are corresponding by letter, and I write to you and tell you that today I went to a baseball game and got a seat behind the dugout, do I have to explain to you what a baseball game is? Do I have to explain to you the significance of getting a seat behind the dugout? Do I have to explain what a dugout is? Of course not. I can simply take for granted that you will know what I am talking about.

Corinth was THE most immoral city in Greece according to most historians. Male and female temple prostitutes were the norm and if we understand Paul correctly, even the very magistrates themselves were wholly given over to these vices. The Christians at Corinth were being saved out of things like male prostitution as well as other heinous sins. The women were the same way. These were people who have just come out of a lifestyle and Paul's instruction is in part directed at encouraging them not to dress and carry themselves like they did when they were in the world. The men were instructed to cut their hair since the men in Corinth who were homosexual, wore long effeminate looking hair to attract men.

When you study the history and culture of the city Corinth, and then read Paul's letter, it becomes more apparent why he said the things he did to them.

If headcovering were a "universal" commandment, it would be in every epistle as they did not all have access to a complete Bible as we do today. We have no record of Paul commanding headcoverings to the Philippians or the Colossians or the Galatians. If it were universally commanded by God, we would see this command repeated to every congregation addressed in the New Testament. We would see longer doctrinal explanations in more epistles even the general epistles like Peter's and John's letters.

Again, I have nothing but respect for those who follow the headcovering and silence doctrines. I do not condemn or criticize the practice. I just don't see it as a universal commandment to the whole church.

Rather, Paul defends the instruction by appealing to the honor due to a woman's head [the man, universal-regardless of region/time], the example of nature [again universal-regardless of region/time], and because of the angels [connected to no region/time].

I don't think that qualifies it as a universal instruction and I don't see that Paul is necessarily defeding it. I do think there are some good spiritual principles that we can take from that, but I don't see the literal commandment as universally binding.

[irishcowboy]

Paul had a wife and was divorced??

THAT - I have N E V E R heard....!!!

I was just saying there are some that are teaching this..... it is not known for sure if he ever was married...

mike