Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Women in the church

I truly believe that Paul was called by God and there is a plethora of wonderful instruction and guidance in his letters, but the 1 Timothy 11-15 verses are very upsetting to me. I wonder why Paul would have given these instructions, and wonder if it was specific to the women of this time, who were uneducated, and perhaps didn't have the great male church leadership that we are so fortunate with these days.
 
I have known women who have more Bible knowlege and understanding in the tip of their little finger (as it were) them many men. I do believe Paul's instruction to the church in Corinth and to Timothy are final and for our time as well as when Paul wrote. It has nothing to do with man being superior to woman, but rather the creation in Genesis. See also I Cor.11.
 
Hi handy -

I pretty much share your concerns regarding the scriptures teaching's on the womans role in the worship service.

I don't have everything put together yet, as I'm still studying this subject, but I'm starting to think that the measure of the Holy Spirit, which all Christians receive upon becoming a Christian, is the key to understanding this issue.

I'm beginning to think that it is these "gifts" of the Holy Spirit - healing, talking in unknown tongues, interpreting, performing miracles, prophesy, etc., that accounts for this apparent breach of other commands found in the scriptures.

Evidently, the women who received the gift of prophecy were allowed/required to share this gift with the church, and before men, if their head was properly covered.

I, personally, can see where the act of prophesying may also be seen by some as teaching.

Anyway, at this point in time, this is the way that I have come to view this conundrum.

I would be interested to know other's views on this subject as well.

In Christ,

Pogo
 
Thayer, the Greek lexicographer cites an instance where prophesying is teaching and not necessarily inspired. My wife wears a head covering.
 
Hi duval,

Yes, I recall that that you had mentioned this before.

And, I'm in total agreement with you/her on this!

But, as handy has pointed out above, there are scriptures which seem to contradict this understanding, and my post above is just an attempt to show one scenario that may apply, which would remove this conflict.

I wish that someone here with formal Greek training would revisit the passages of 1 Corinthians 11:15-16, in an effort to shed more light on the issue of women wearing a covering!

Some interpret verses 15 and 16 so that they contradict verses 3-14, which immediately precedes them.

In Christ,

Pogo
 
Hi Pogo: have not posted with you in a while. Hurricane Ike put us out of commission for a time.
About the head covering, my wife and I made a study of it fairly recently and came to the conclusion she should wear one. Will be happy to pass on to you what we studied, but don't know the proper place to do so.---Duval
 
Hey, duval,

Sorry to hear that you've been impacted by that hurricane, I hope that you and yours are all well!

As it stands now, I'm convinced that when women are present in the church's worship service, they are to veil their faces during prayer (and prophesy, too), as per 1 Corinthians 11.

I believe that I have even went into great detail in a thread somewhere on this site, offering the support for why I see things the way that I do, and why properly glorifing our Lord is not optional, and should be a major concern for all Christians, men as well as women.

But, few agree, here, or anywhere, for that matter!

However, they also don't seem to be able to offer anything substantial to defend their position, either!

Of course, I'm always interested in other view points, pro or con, and I would be grateful if you would share the results of your study with me!

I'm thinking that this topic would be a good fit for this thread, but if you dont agree you can email me at oxeyeox@yahoo.

In Christ,

Pogo
 
Have no problem using a thread except so many get on line its difficult to keep a thought going. Will e-mail you unless otherwise advised.---In Him, duval
 
duval, I too, am sorry to hear that the hurricane impacted you so badly. My prayer for you is that God will aid you in getting all back in order.

If you have a good study on how women should wear a head covering in this day and age, especially if it can reconcile the whole 'women should be silent, yet can prophesy' and how that played out with women like Pricilla and Phoebe, by all means share it here. This is the thread devoted to the study of women's role in the church, so this thread would be more than appropriate, and I would love to see what you have concluded.
 
Nope, I didn't. You should see a button that say's PM right under my name and avatar. If you click on that, it should bring you right to into the PM and you can simply copy/paste whatever you meant to send. Hopefully that will work, if you don't feel free to post your thoughts here.
 
The trial by the waters of jealousy in Numbers 5:11-31

Hello fellow bible study companions;

I hope it is not too late for me to offer further exegesis on the passage in Numbers 5. I have been a busy and a happy little bee, extracting all that my feeble mind can-- to rightly divide this scripture. I believe this study can bring more light into the scriptural definition of the role of women in the church. Because this passage deals with what seems to be a partial treatment of the male over the female, by God’s law. As the text is read for itself, it seems an unrighteous judgment. But God forbid! Psalm 19:7 confirms that; “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.†Therefore this law for jealousy came from God’s own heart and mind for humankind, and is His expressed word, which abides forever.

How do we reconcile these passages with the account of the woman caught in adultery and brought for judgment before Jesus Christ? For it is still true that; “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.â€ÂJames. 1:17. He has said of Himself in the [in the Italian O.T. book, Malachi 3:6] ;) … “For I am the LORD, I change not…â€Â

Now I believe we can harmonize these accounts and see the fulfilling of the Law thru Christ’s example. What is possible is that we are not looking at this law of jealousy in its context, and missing its fulfillment in the New Testament, so then are perhaps missing important insight into this law. As I said previously, the NT explains the OT.

I will take the liberty to state the general exegesis of the context we find this scripture within, for the purpose of shedding more light on the Lord’s meaning of the verses we have been looking at. All my biblical references are KJV. :-D

In the 3rd and 4th chapters we see God organizing His people, giving directives for priest and the elder.
In chapter 5 we see God commanding purification among His people, those who are leprous, those who have issue (are bleeding constantly) and those who cannot stay away from dead things; God commands to put them out, they cannot remain. But the reason God gives is not the obvious one--- His reason is NOT because leprosy is contagious, dead bodies are diseased, or bloody issues are dangerous. No, rather purification is required because God is in the camp. :infinity:

Holy God dwells there. See today we have Seeker friendly churches that say if you are homosexual, or practice fornication as a lifestyle, it’s okay, come on in. Sadly, no repentance from this sin or any other is preached, because... well... it’s just not friendly. . .! :crazyeyes:

But Proverbs 27:6 says; “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.†God is saying oh no, do not be IN--sensitive to sin to gain the friendship of a seeker. Jesus is the Seeker that we are to be sensitive to. The Father desires we worship Him in spirit and in truth. Therefore, we must deal with the running issues, with the leprous, with the lovers of death, these things are to be dealt with; along with adultery and false accusation among the brethren.

"Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp...": It wasn’t that any of these things made a person, or proved them to be a notorious sinner (though that was often wrongly assumed); but leprosy, unclean discharges, and dead bodies were reminders of the effects of sin - from which Israel must separate as they prepare to march into the Promised Land.

*God is concerned with far more than our individual acts of sin; He demands our sin nature be addressed. Only in Jesus can our sin nature - the old man - be crucified, and the nature of Jesus - the new man - be granted to us as new creations. God cannot abide with the old man, but God can and does dwell with the new man. :fadein:

Today, Promised Land people are not sinlessly perfect; but they are not openly, obviously, walking in the sin nature either – this is illustrated by those set outside the camp.

“You shall put out both male and femaleâ€Â: You shall put out both male and female: Neither male nor female was to be excluded from this command. Neither perceived sympathy nor perceived superiority could spare someone the consequences of sin’s damages.
In Romans 2:11 “For there is no respect of persons with God.â€Â: The words respect of persons come from two ancient Greek words put together - to receive and face. It means to judge things on the basis of externals or by pre-conceived notions. These are presumptions made by looking at external appearances only, or ideas we have gained about the truth that are not true--- a notion.

(I am also saying this is be important to our study on the law for spiritual jealousy and will bring it up again, later.)

The Lord goes on to detail the separation caused from the damage of our sin, in verses 5-8.
Commit a sin against a man, it is against the Lord, and each must pay for it. Make restitution, this is Gods heart. Why? Because though for God restitution is not necessary, for human beings it provides a work toward reconciliation. Give back what you have taken away and add 20% to it. This will win people to the Lord, when they see our deep concern for the harm we have caused them or others.

Our tendency is to weasel out of our responsibility. We know the damage that is done, but we say, I can’t repay-- the person moved away, or is dead and has no family. But even if the person is not available we are to pay our debt of restitution to the Lord. God wants restitution. This truth also plays into this law for spiritual jealousy and false accusation of adultery.

Next God is commanding His people to be separated from the suspicion of sin.

Verses 11-14 The situation.

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'If any man's wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught…â€Â; If a woman commits adultery but is not pregnant from it, and there is no proof of adultery, no witnesses to prove or disprove it.
“…if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he becomes jealous of his wife, who has defiled herself; or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he becomes jealous of his wife, although she has not defiled herself;†So if her husband is suspicious, whether it is true or not that she was unfaithful, the heart of God is to restore trust between the two in the marriage. Only the truth can safe-guard their union, just as our honest and open heart toward God grants us continual fellowship with Him. God will not to allow this accusation to fester without settlement.

Obviously, unfounded jealousy has spoiled many a marriage, and justified jealousy has forced attention on confronting the sin of adultery; in this passage, God gives Israel a way to deal with both. But would we deal with this issue in the same manner today? Certainly not! Why not? Isn't the law of God perfect, able to convert the soul? Yes, and indeed yes! However since Jesus Christ came to make attonement for us --- He has fulfilled the law that is wriiten in the OT.

The offering to resolve a spirit of jealousy. Verse 15.

"Then the man shall bring his wife to the priest": The jealous husband was to bring a certain amount of barley meal, and this grain only - not accompanied by any oil or frankincense, things which customarily accompanied a grain offering. "He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it": There was to be no oil or frankincense offered - which were thought to sweeten a typical grain offering; See, there is nothing sweet about this because it is an "...offering for remembrance, for bringing iniquity to remembrance." This was not for those involved to remember their iniquity, but for the whole community to remember the terrible nature and consequences of either adultery or false accusation.

The oil is a symbol the Spirit of God and frankincense is a pleasing aroma, this is not mixed with this offering to prove that man’s or woman’s jealousy is an unpleasant stench, certainly not a sweet savor to God. This offering is not something the Lord anoints. This offering was truly bitter, not sweet, because either a wife would be found guilty of adultery, or a husband would be found guilty of unfounded suspicion and false accusation. :crying:

Nowâ€â€in the ceremony of the offering it is where we can see the harmonized truth of God’s word with the woman caught in adultery. Verses 16-28 I will go through it step by step.

God says there is to be purification, in immorality, from the start. God does not want us caught up in immoral behaviors. But what about the guy she played around with? What about his unfaithfulness? The Rabbis say this applies both ways, because of the clear commands in this chapter earlier to both male and female, and because when caught in adultery the law commanded both the man and the woman to be stoned. Certainly this is adultery, and men were not kept from the law of God in regards to adultery. Both were to be slain.

Yet again, would we practice the law of stoning adulterers in the church today? Certainly not! The woman is used as an illustration. But why is the woman used and not the man?

This ceremony may only have dealt with an adulterous wife and not a husband because for the most part, the Mosaic Law was “case law†- not meant to anticipate every potential situation, but to give examples that will set precedence for other cases. It is likely that the same ceremony would be practiced if a wife became suspicious of a husband’s adultery. (Pastor David Guzik commentary)

From my perspective further, because the woman is a picture of you and me, and the man is a picture of the Lord; just as with the woman caught in adultery in the Temple --- she typifies us before salvation. See, we are the woman; we have been unfaithful to our husband the Lord. The bride of Christ speaks of the entire church, not only of women, and when the Lord speaks to His sons, He is including the whole body of Christ, not only the men.

"The priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel", We have this treasure in earthen vessels, The earthen vessel is God manifest in the flesh; Jesus Christ came to earth in an earthen vessel, became like you and me , He who was rich was made poor for our sakes. The earthen vessel is filled with holy water: Jesus was filled with the holy water, water is a symbol of the word, he is the word, made flesh, He is filled with the word.

"Take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water": This water was made bitter not from the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle, but from the curse of the law scraped into the water; and while the woman held the grain offering in her hand (a reminder of fellowship with God through Jesus Christ the Bread of Life), the priest pronounced an oath over the woman.

"Then the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord, uncover the woman's head",
LOOK there it is again, the covering... The idea of uncovering the woman’s head in verse 18; is to unbind and “let down†her hair. “The unbinding of the woman’s hair is another hint that she was viewed as unclean. ‘Lepers’ had to let their hair hang loose as a mark of their uncleanness.†(From commentary by Wenham)

Though again I also see this as a removal of her outward symbol of male headship and provisional protection.

"The priest shall put her under oath, and say to the woman": In his oath, the priest would solemnly announce that if the woman was innocent of the accusation of adultery, she would be free from this bitter water that brings a curse. But if she was in fact guilty of adultery, she would be under the curse.

See, the woman is a picture of you and me… The priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall scrape them off into the bitter water: After reading the curse, and hearing the woman’s agreement, the priest would write these curses on a scroll - and scrape the dried ink into the bitter water.

But you and me, we, as Christians, are no longer under the curse of the law! Praise be to God through His Son Jesus Christ! “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree:†Galatians 3:13.

"The priest shall take the grain offering and wave it before the LORD": This offering is a picture of fellowship we have with God thru His Son the Bread of Life. The accused woman would drink the bitter water.

However for us… now... Jesus absorbed the curse; the curse was blotted out that ran into the holy water. He became an earthen vessel, baring our bitter sin, Jesus took our sin on Himself, and was slain for it, and our debt has been paid. Praise the Lord Most High, full of mercy!

See at the Feast of Tabernacles the water libation was poured out. This happened the day before the woman was caught in adultery and brought before Jesus to judge. Jesus was in the temple, teaching the word (the grain was being offered/The Bread of Life was being offered), He was giving out the water (the word). In fact that day Jesus said; “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.†John 7:37.

Now when He heard their accusations against this woman caught in adultery, what did Jesus do? He wrote in the DUST, in the dust of the temple floor, previously this was the dust of the tabernacle. Same location, same dust just many years later. . .

And He wrote against those who held stones, those who would continue to carry out the curse, though they were none of them able to cast a pebble--- because of their own sin.

And Jesus set her free asking her; “When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those your accusers? Has no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.†And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.†He freed her from her unfaithful tendency, as He frees us from ours; he put her in a place of liberty. He freed her from her immorality the rotting legs (our walk was so crooked) and the belly bloated from rotten stupidity.

Jesus came to set us free, by fulfilling the perfect law.

The rabbis also wrote that if the woman was guilty, the same disease would come upon the man she had committed adultery with; but they also said that even if the wife had been guilty, but her husband had been guilty of adultery also, the bitter water would have no effect on her.

Clearly, this is evidence that God does not want couples to live in an on-going state of jealousy. He gave a mechanism how jealous feelings could either be proved or disproved, and the relationship would deal with the truth from there.

Surely, both the holiness of God and the perfection of His word testifies against us. We should be forced to drink a bitter cup that would destroy us. But Jesus drank it for us. :-D

Well this was a very long study, so I apologize for the length.

bonnie
 
Pogo said:
Hi duval,

Yes, I recall that that you had mentioned this before.

And, I'm in total agreement with you/her on this!

But, as handy has pointed out above, there are scriptures which seem to contradict this understanding, and my post above is just an attempt to show one scenario that may apply, which would remove this conflict.

I wish that someone here with formal Greek training would revisit the passages of 1 Corinthians 11:15-16, in an effort to shed more light on the issue of women wearing a covering!

Some interpret verses 15 and 16 so that they contradict verses 3-14, which immediately precedes them.

In Christ,

Pogo

Its a rather beautiful thing, once understood. Woman's hair is their glory.1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:............

So the covering of a veil, means, when a woman enters the presence of the Lord, she covers her glory, out of respect for His glory.

I am a man, so I cannot talk from of experience, but ladies who started doing this, told me that this is indeed a blessing to them .

As for women teaching, I still maintain that it is as Paul said. Simply because we are suppose to show forth the order of God. We the church are in submission to Jesus. We are the bride and He is the Groom.

We would not waste our valuable time on such issues, if we only submit to God in His Word. In reality it is really not rocket science, it simply says:
1Ti 2:12 But I permit not a woman to teach which means: "I do not permit a woman to teach" and if we have to put it another way it would say: "I do not permit a woman to teach:

So Paul is saying: " I do not permit a woman to teach"

lol

C
 
Cornelius -

I agree!

But, the fact remains that the vast majority of women in the church do NOT wear a veil!

I think that the reasons are many.

One such reason, is the belief that this teaching is cultural, and only applied to the first century Pagans of Greece.

However, any study of the "manners and customs" of both the Old and New Testament Hebrews, will prove that such is a myth.

Now, unfortunately, I also realize that even if every Christian were to accept my view on this as fact, most would feel that a woman's hair would still be a suitable covering/veil for her when praying.

Verse 15 clearly tells me that LONG hair on a woman glorifies HER. Not man, her spiritual “head,†as a proper covering should.

Clearly, the scriptures teach that short hair on a woman doesn't glorify her, according to customs in the first century, it marked her as either a slave or as one caught in the act of adultery.

Scripturally, her LONG hair is then given to her as an adornment, to enhance her appearance, a GLORY to HER, INSTEAD OF a proper covering which would glorify her spiritual "head," man.

1 Corinthians 11 KJV
(15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR (see Strong's G-473, OPPOSITE, INSTEAD OF, BECAUSE OF, IN ADDITION TO) a covering.

Most interpret 1 Corinthians 11:15 to mean that a woman's LONG hair is given to her to use FOR a covering RATHER than using a veil for a covering.

The scholars who interpreted the KJV obviously erred when interpreting G-473 as "for".

As I've stated here, and elsewhere, I see this passage to mean that a woman's LONG hair is given to her for a covering that glorifies herself INSTEAD of a PROPER covering/veil that would glorify her "spiritual" head/source...man > Christ > God.

To me, this means that it is impossible for one covering that glorifies oneself, to also glorify anyone else...man, Christ, or God!

Let me, again, call your attention to either Strong's or Thayer's definition of G-473.

G473
ἀντί
anti
an-tee'
A primary particle; opposite, that is, instead or because of (rarely in addition to): - for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.

Let's re-examine the options our translators faced with this passage.

Opposite / instead of / because of / in addition to.

To me, 'instead of' has the same significance as 'in addition to.' But, apparently few agree with my position.

Let's insert each of the most viable options from Strong's G-473 above, into the passage, and compare each, side-by-side, below...

(15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR (G-473, for the OPPOSITE of) a covering."

(15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR (G-473, INSTEAD OF) a covering."

(15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR (G-473, BECAUSE OF) a covering."

(15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR (G-473, IN ADDITION TO) a covering."

Ah...Breaking this verse down this way adds much clarity to this difficult passage for me!

Hopefully, everyone will agree!

All of the possibilities, except - FOR, BECAUSE OF (and of course IN THE ROOM OF) - make MUCH more sense, and NOW does NOT conflict with the message of the chapter as a whole!

I would be grateful if someone formally trained in Greek will examine the original Greek text of this passage, and the following verse 16, as well, and offer an educated opinion.

In Christ,

Pogo
 
Hello all,

In my view, aside from the passages speaking of women prophets, and women prophesying, it seems to be the two-verse passage of 1 Corinthians 11:15-16, that is creating all of the confusion, and conflicting interpretations regarding the wearing of a veil/covering by women during prayer.

Since I have posted some of my thoughts on verse 15, earlier (above), I would also like to offer
some thoughts on verse 16.

1 Corinthians 11 KJV
(16) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I don't see the 'custom' being referenced in verse 16 as being the custom of wearing a covering.

I see the act of being "contentious" as being what there is no 'custom' of throughout the church!

Nowhere in the NT can I find where 'contention' is supported, embraced, or encouraged. Rather, it is discouraged, frowned upon, and condemned.

The word "contentious" is only found twice in my KJV of the NT. See the passage below...

Romans 2 KJV
(8) But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

And, as much as I love and prefer the KJV for the bulk of my Bible study, I've found that many passages are more properly interpreted by other versions. Please examine a few other versions of 1 Corinthians 11:16 below...

1 Corinthians 11 The Message (MSG)
(16) I hope you're not going to be argumentative about this. All God's churches see it this way; I don't want you standing out as an exception.

1 Corinthians 11 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
(16) This is how things are done in all of God's churches, and that's why none of you should argue about what I have said.

1 Corinthians 11 Good News Bible (GNB)
(16) But if anyone wants to argue about it, all I have to say is that neither we nor the churches of God have any other custom in worship.

From the very first time I read 1 Corinthians 11:16, it has struck me that the verse is talking about one's act of CONTENTION as being the problem referenced here, not the act of covering the head.

I have found other sources which support the understanding that the Jewish “culture†ALWAYS taught that their women were to be veiled, such as any of the "Manners and Customs" books now in print (that I've had the chance to scan anyway).

Therefore, it makes sense to me that whatever "culture" one has been exposed to before joining Christ's one true church, the wearing of a veil/covering by the women members is one of Paul's prime concerns when he tells us to "...keep (G-2722 - HOLD FAST) the ordinances as I delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2

In Christ,

Pogo
 
I would just like to mention that an overseer (or "bishop") is a position of authority in the church, where the word "deacon" literally means "server". The first deacons served tables. The position of deacon is not a position of authority. So, of course, deacons in the early church were often women. The instruction that a deacon be "the husband of one wife" was referring to male deacons, of course, but such instruction did not exclude female deacons.

As for the head covering of I Corinthians 11, I will say a few words about that in my next post. I do have a few years of formal study in Greek, and taught adult beginners in Greek one evening a week for a year.

Just to whet your appetite, there are two different Greek words in I Corinthians 11 which are translated "covering". Therein lies the confusion.
 
I have just been reading on a Bible site, and what amazes me is the way people slip in their doctrines and call it truth. Its really disturbing and this is only ONE example. SO how many more "truths" are we taught in churches today.

Look how this verse is abused without shame.

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchreae:
Rom 16:2 that ye receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever matter she may have need of you: for she herself also hath been a helper of many, and of mine own self.

Regardless of how 1Co 11:2-16 are interpreted, what we do know is that women did play very active roles in Paul's churches and that this text was not intended by Paul to in any way impede women's active participation in church. After all, Paul had written a letter of introduction for Phoebe, the presiding church leader in Cenchrae, as she journeyed to Ephesus, as described in detail by Helmut Koester at http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/women01.htm. One way or another, it was the dignity of women and men -- and order in the church -- that Paul was really emphasizing in 1Co 11:2-16.
http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-1co.htm

So the servant diakonos now becomes the "presiding church leader" in this persons "teaching of the truth" . How absurd.

Phoebe served the saints, as any Christian must and should do.


Further it is said:

Romans 16 is a letter of recommendation, the earliest letter of recommendation for a Christian minister, and it's written for a woman, Phoebe, who is, in the beginning of the chapter, said to have been a deacon, not a deaconess -- but a deacon in the sense of a preacher, a minister, because Paul uses the same word for himself. He calls himself, in a number of instances, a deacon of the new covenant in 2 Corinthians.

This is written by a male chauvinist. The word is diakonos, servant. Jesus said v ..........


Mat 20:26 ButG1161 it shall notG3756 beG2071 soG3779 amongG1722 you:G5213 butG235 whosoeverG3739 G1437 willG2309 beG1096 greatG3173 amongG1722 you,G5213 let him beG2077 yourG5216 minister;G1249 (Diakonos, servant)Mat 20:27 AndG2532 whosoeverG3739 G1437 willG2309 beG1511 chiefG4413 amongG1722 you,G5213 let him beG2077 yourG5216 servant:G1401 (ASV servant ) Here it is doulos, a slave

Jesus is not using the word like the article above is using it. Jesus is obviously not saying,whosoever will be great among you let him be your teacher, pastor. Of course not, He is saying those of us who will be great in the Kingdom will be those who serve others, who lay down their lives for others and the gospel.

Paul was doing that.

Phoebe was doing that.

Are we?

C
 
sheshisown -

I must confess to dodging around your lengthy posts up to this point.

Now, however, I'm ready to tackle them! Comments to follow soon.

Paidion -

Thanks in advance for any light that your understanding of the Greek may shed on this issue.

If I could be so bold as to beg a favor, please!

I would also be very interested in your thoughts regarding the translations of the two, very different, words that are both interpreted as "for" in verse 15 of 1 Corinthians 11.

Please see below...

1 Corinthians 11 KJV
(15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for(see Strong's G-3754) her hair is given her for(see Strongs's G-473) a covering.

It just strikes me as strange that if Paul had truly intended for G-473 to be understood to mean "for," that he didn't use the same word that he had already used, G-3754, only six words previously in the very same passage!

Cornelius -

Great perspective!

I totally agree with your evaluations of that site!

In Christ,

Pogo
 
Daniel 12:8 "And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, 'O MY Lord, what shall be the end of these things?"

Daniel wanted to know the wisdom of the things that would take place in the time of the end that he had just written about. He pleaded with God, but God sealed the wisdom and knowledge of those thing until that generation of the time of the end was living.

Daniel 12:9 "And he said, 'Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end."

If you are studying under the writings of someone that lived many years prior to our generation, you are studying under conditions where traditions are taught. God promised that he would reveal that wisdom to His prophets in our generation, and as we read in Joel 2:28, "And it shall come to pass afterward, [after this generation of the end times comes into being,] that I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,..." We are living in the times when people of both sexes are being seal with the truth of God's Word, preparing them for the coming of the false Christ so that they shall stand and be a witness against Satan and his world system. If a woman has the understanding and wisdom of God Word, then it is her duty to speak out, and those preventing that wisdom from going forth are taking a stand against the Holy Spirit Himself.

It is the Holy Spirit that will turn the hearts of His people back to the Father, the true Father and not the fake father. This is the very last warning of the Old Testament, before it came to an end.

Malachi 4:5 "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:"

Malachi 4:6 "And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children back to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."

There are two "fathers" coming in our generation, the first is the false father or "instead of Christ", and the other will be the True Christ, Jesus Christ that come at the sounding of the seventh trumpet. Satan comes at the sixth trumpet, and those that do not have the wisdom of the Spirit of God for our generation will be taken by the first christ who is the fake. We are to listen to the Word of our Heavenly Father and learn wisdom.

So what Paul was addressing in this fifth verse was that if a woman is speaking and prophesying under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, let her speak. However, if she is speaking out of her own mind and not under the anointing, or leading of the Holy Spirit, then she is keep quiet, and this applies to both men and women. The covering that Paul is talking about is Jesus Christ. When even a man tries to teach without the wisdom or covering of Christ, he or she is a soldier of Christ out of uniform.
 
It seems that most churches teach that women wearing a veil during prayer is optional.

Since I see men as doing the teaching, and determining the policies of scripturally obedient congregations...

Will not the men of each congregation be held accountable if the wearing of a veil turns out to be a key element of the worship service?

In Christ,

Pogo
 
Back
Top