Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Taleb | 79347 | ||
Hello, Joe, I agree with you TO a point. Often I quote 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired of God, and is useful for teaching, useful for correction, and useful for training in righteousness” ---- Useful, how? “So that the person of God may be fully equipped for all good work.” Isn’t “sharing” the gospel “good work?” Women aren't allowed to do that? I'm not going to tell that to all the woman on this forum that they "aren't allowed" to answer questions, and if they need any answers to ask their husbands. Are you? How we apply Scripture MUST also take in consideration of how it was “applied” when the Holy Spirit inspired it to be written. I’m from the school where you keep things in context of not only the surrounding verses, but also Scripture itself. It’s not so much what does Paul say about ….(?) It IS about what does Scripture say about …(?) We CAN”T take and apply much of Scripture to our daily walk. It would be against all that God has taught us through the “other” Scriptures. The Scriptures have many “paradoxes.” Proverbs 26:4-5 is but one example. Depending upon the circumstances, culture, timing, plus other variables, we “apply or don’t apply” one, or the other, of those verses accordingly. Thanks for your kindly reminder of being careful. Yet, I need to stand by my original thought about what I stated, and I trust you can “feel” what I am carefully stating. Paul addressed specific situations that were tended to and dealt with the church in Corinth, that other churches didn’t have. And other churches had situations that he dealt with that other places didn’t have. That IS why he, and other "authors", addressed their specific letters to a specific church, need(s),or individual. Respectfully, Taleb |
||||||
2 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Reformer Joe | 79395 | ||
Hi, Taleb. You wrote: 'Isn’t “sharing” the gospel “good work?” Women aren't allowed to do that? I'm not going to tell that to all the woman on this forum that they "aren't allowed" to answer questions, and if they need any answers to ask their husbands. Are you?' If it were biblical, I would. However, Paul was writing of the church service context, first of all, and not the whole sphere of our seven-day-a-week life. And was it just limited to the church of Corinth? "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." --1 Timothy 2:11-12 "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 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." --1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul cites not cultural stipulations, but rather the Law to support his argument. The question is, however, whether Paul is requiring absolute silence or just refraining from speaking from a position of teaching and/or authority (which would include women pastors/elders). I would say that Paul is NOT directing absolute silence on the part of women in all circumstances, and here is why: "But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved." --1 Corinthians 11:6 It may be possible for a woman to pray silently, but a silent prophet is no prophet at all. So, apparently Paul did not forbid the speaking of women in all circumstances, but certainly followed the Lord's direction that the household of God, just like other godly households, are to be led by the husbands and fathers. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Taleb | 79526 | ||
Hello Joe, You stated, “Paul cites not cultural stipulations, but rather the Law to support his argument.” Please, where in the law is his argument stated? Don’t look too hard, because IT IS NOT in Scripture. Have you noticed the first verse of 1 Cor. Chapter 11? Paul wrote, “Imitate me as I imitate Christ.” This must have really confused the church in Corinth when Paul wrote any man who covers his head while praying etc, dishonors Christ (don’t forget, Paul has already instructed us to understand that Christ is the head of every man.) Where does such a statement place 2 Cor. 3:15-17? Romans 14:23? Col. 3:10-11? Too many others? Leviticus 7:13, Moses clothed Aaron’s sons with tunics and put turbans on them, as the Lord commanded. Lev. 10:6 instructs priest, (a man?) “Do NOT BARE your head…” And when Paul wrote about “nature itself teaching it is dishonorable for a man to wear long hair … what did they think? Reading Acts 18 reminds me how Paul let his hair grow long, IN CORINTH of all places. And what about the “teaching” of 1 Cor 11:10 “For THIS REASON a woman ought to have a sign of submission on her head” … (what reason?) “Because of the angels”. Huh? Is this Paul’s teaching? Where did such a notion about the angels come from? Or, is this in reference to what the church of Corinth had adopted as explained in the letter referred to in the beginning of the epistle AND in chapter 7:1 where it talks about matters? (plural). Every place where “angels” talked with women, it says nothing about them covering their heads. I'm sticking with my conclusion. Woman don’t HAVE to wear veils, they CAN pray out loud in church, etc. From where do I draw such a conclusion? 1 Tim 2:9 talks about woman wearing what? Head-coverings? Nope. Had they worn head coverings, how would anyone know if it was braided or not? And here it talks about men raising their hands in prayer. Is that the only way God answers prayers? Did Jesus always raise His hands? What about the one Jesus commended? He pounded his chest as he prayed. Respectfully, Taleb |
||||||
4 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Reformer Joe | 79555 | ||
"Please, where in the law is his argument stated?" First of all, I would like a little more clarification. Are you suggesting that Paul either lies or is mistaken in 1 Corinthians 14:34 when he says: "for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says." You also wrote: "Don’t look too hard, because IT IS NOT in Scripture." Paul is largely talking about women being in subjection to their husbands in corporate worship (verse 11:3). We read the following in the Torah: "Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." --Genesis 3:16 Granted, this section of 1 Corinthians does require more than just a cursory read to grasp what the problems are that Paul is addressing and their applicability to the church at large, but to quickly conclude either that we put parentheses around these verses or that we are to make all the women wear shawls is not being thorough enough. A couple of things I would like to put forward as we work to unpack the meaning: 1. It seems to me that the problem that Paul was addressing was that the women were trying to be the men in the church. While the head coverings might have been a cultural phenomenon, the fact that women were being told not to go uncovered LIKE THE MEN reveals a deeper principle than just what to wear on Sunday morning. 2. Likewise, while Paul did indeed go Nazirite for a while, I do not think that is what he was addressing when he was speaking of nature and men and long hair. Again, it was culturally inappropriate for men to have long hair. Why? Because that was what the WOMEN did. 3. Therefore, rather than being a 1st-century style guide, Paul was emphasizing the differing roles of men and women, especially in the context of corporate worship. "I'm sticking with my conclusion. Woman don’t HAVE to wear veils, they CAN pray out loud in church, etc." I agree, but that isn't to say that 1 Corinthians 10-14 is irrelevant to us because Paul was addressing specific trouble spots in the Corinthian worship. Leadership and teaching in the corporate worship setting is never extended to women. Indeed we must study the Scriptures with our thinking caps on. That way we avoid the extremes you mention (the "must we raise our hands?" argument) as well as the things at the other end of the spectrum that are equally as wrong (e.g., the idea tthese verses have no doctrinal relevance to the church in the 21st century). Thomas Schreiner wrote a very thorogh examination of these thorny verses and contributed it as a chapter in _Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_, ed. Grudem and Piper. You can access the book in PDF form at the link below. Even if you end up disagreeing with the conclusions, it is a very thoughtful study: http://www.cbmw.org/rbmw/rbmw.pdf --Joe! |
||||||
5 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Taleb | 79604 | ||
Hello Joe, Thank you for your thought provoking response. I understand perfectly where your concerns are coming from. That is one problem with ‘back and forth” dialog, rather than face to face. In moments, rather than days, or longer, one can clarify what is meant in any comment. I appreciate your respect, Joe, and your spiritual maturity demonstrated in your postings. That said, let’s look at what you wrote and how it fits in our discussion. You wrote, “First of all, I would like a little more clarification. Are you suggesting that Paul either lies or is mistaken in 1 Corinthians 14:34 when he says: "for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says." Paul is largely talking about women being in subjection to their husbands in corporate worship (verse 11:3). We read the following in the Torah: "Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." --Genesis 3:16 Joe, Let me make myself clear – I do not take what Scripture says lightly. Everything is for our “instruction”, if you will. But not everything is pertinent for our lives. Romans 14 helps us to understand the differences in “cultures” from place to place. What you are permitted to do in one place, would be “out-of-place” someplace else. Paul, as a “world traveler” would notice the differences in the ways things are done, said, thought. He would, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, act and speak accordingly. Now, I must say, your tying Gen 3:16 to this passage in Cor. doesn’t exactly fit. I have many study Bibles. In some of those Bibles, I have also read that “conclusion” about Gen. But it still doesn’t fit. Why doesn’t it fit? Because of what Paul wrote: “just as the Law also says”. And we must realize that Gen. 3:16 ISN’T A LAW. LAWS ARE TO BE OBEYED. How can a woman OBEY, or, for that matter, disobey Gen. 3:16? Again, I promise you, there is NO LAW about this to be found in God’s Word. If you have access to the Talmud, you will find exactly to what Paul was referring. But the Talmud is man-made laws, and the Torah is God-made. Was Paul saying they were to obey man rather than God? Why would Paul do exactly the opposite of what so many other letters warn against? Didn’t he mean what he said about their not being male or female from God’s prospective? Thank you, Joe, for the “tip” on the website. My computer time is often hit and miss, but I will check it out. :) Respectfully, Taleb |
||||||