Which specific law is this referencing?

[Kerry]

What y'all are missing is that was tradition for the men to sit in one area and the women sat in another area and what was happening is this, the woman did not understand what the speker was saying and she would shout to her husband to explain and it disrupted the service. This why Paul said wait till you get home and then ask your husband what was meant by the speaker. It by no means disqualifies a woman speaker.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

All women are to keep silence in the time of the coming together when the assembly is addressed. The men only take the floor. Women are NOT delegated to that responsibility.

Even if such is true, then you still have no right whatsoever to twist or wrest Paul's words as recorded in I Corinthians 14:34-35 as an alleged "proof text" for the same and I'll publicly and personally call you or anybody else out every time that any of you seek to do the same.

"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. 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." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Again, CONTEXTUALLY, Paul was specifically addressing WIVES who were to inquire of THEIR HUSBANDS AT HOME. Yes, CONTEXTUALLY, these are the "women" for whom it was "a shame to speak in the church". Again, this is precisely why Paul alluded to Genesis 3:16 as his "proof text" for the same and, again, there, we read:

"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." (Genesis 3:16)

Again, THE CONTEXT of this "command" (I Corinthians 14:34) is that of A HUSBAND AND HIS WIFE and nothing that you or anybody else on the face of the earth could ever say is going to change THIS FACT. If you think for even a moment that God was speaking of "all women" here, then, quite frankly, you're out of your mind. In no way, shape or form would God ever be talking about "bringing forth children" OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT OF MARRIAGE. Furthermore, when God told Eve that her "desire" was going to be TO HER HUSBAND, He wasn't suggesting that she was somehow going to be "desiring" Adam in some sort of romantic way. No, rather, her "desire" was directly related to her "desire" to RULE OVER ADAM and God therefore countered the same by saying "and he shall RULE OVER thee". In fact, we see this same exact type of Satanically inspired "desire" being spoken of in the very next chapter of Genesis where we read:

Genesis chapter 4

[1] And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
[2] And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
[3] And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
[4] And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
[5] But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
[6] And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
[7] If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Here, sin is actually PERSONIFIED ("HIS desire"..."over HIM") in that Cain "was of that wicked one" (I John 3:12) because he opened "the door" to Satan by refusing to "do well". Anyhow, my point is that Satan "desired" Cain in that he wanted to RULE OVER HIM and, again, for this very reason, God countered Satan's "desire" for Cain by admonishing Cain to "RULE OVER HIM".

A woman may prophesy or be used by God in a powerful way within her place as a woman of a meek and quiet spirit outside of that time of coming together of the saints. But the assembly has an order to how the service is conducted. It is, as Paul said, a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

It is also a shame for a man to have long hair, for an example of how God has rules of conduct for both men and women within his body.

Well, seeing how you mentioned "a meek and quiet spirit", again, I'll begin by addressing THE CONTEXT of the same:

I Peter chapter 3

[1] Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
[2] While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
[3] Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
[4] But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
[5] For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
[6] Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Again, THE CONTEXT is that of WIVES BEING IN SUBJECTION TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS and nothing that you or anybody else could ever say or suggest is going to change THIS FACT. Even in the example given, Sarah was Abraham's WIFE, so stop trying to make scriptures say that beyond which they actually do say. IOW, these scriptures do NOT pertain to "all women", but, rather, SPECIFICALLY TO WIVES IN RELATION TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS. Seeing how you also mentioned how "a woman may prophesy" and how "it is also a shame for a man to have long hair", I'll now address the portion of scripture which deals with the same:

I Corinthians chapter 11

[1] Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
[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.

When Paul said that "the head of the woman is the man", CONTEXTUALLY, what was he saying? Was he somehow referring to "all women" as you suggest? No, he was not and I'll not only prove the same FROM THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of Paul's words, but also FROM THE CONTEXT of what Paul said elsewhere in relation to the same. For example, elsewhere, we read:

Ephesians chapter 5

[22] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
[23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
[24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
[25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
[26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
[27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
[28] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
[29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
[30] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
[32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
[33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Again, THE CONTEXT is that of WIVES AND THEIR OWN HUSBANDS. Yes, IN THIS CONTEXT, "the husband is the head of the wife" or "the head of the woman is the man" (I Corinthians 11:3). Having established the same which will only be confirmed as we continue on with THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of what follows in I Corinthians chapter 11, we read:

I Corinthians chapter 11

[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.

Again, that THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT is that of A HUSBAND AND HIS OWN WIFE ought to be obvious in that Paul alluded all the way back to THE FIRST HUSBAND AND WIFE, Adam and Eve, in that Adam "was the image and glory of God: but the woman", Eve, "was the glory of the man", Adam (vs. 7). Again, "the man", Adam, "was not of the woman", Eve, "but the woman", Eve, "was of the man", Adam (vs. 8), in that she was made from Adam's rib. Furthermore, "neither was the man", Adam, "created for the woman", Eve, "but the woman", Eve, "was created for the man", Adam (vs. 9), to be his helpmate. With such a CONTEXTUAL reality before us, what was Paul actually seeking to teach here? Well, while addressing the topic of God-given authority, Paul set the order in the following manner:

1. God is Christ's head (I Corinthians 11:3).
2. Christ is the head of every man or, CONTEXTUALLY, the head of every husband (I Corinthians 11:3).
3. The man or, CONTEXTUALLY, the husband is the head of the woman or, CONTEXTUALLY, his own wife.

IOW, the God-given order of delegated authority ought to look like this:

God
Christ
Husband
Wife

What, then, happens to this God-given order of delegated authority if/when a man's wife usurps his God-given authority over her? Well, the God-given order of delegated authority now gets perverted and looks like this:

God
Christ
Wife
Husband

IOW, now that a man's wife has usurped his God-given authority over her, spiritually or figuratively speaking, she has now "covered his head" by coming between him and his delegated head, Christ, and, spiritually or figuratively speaking, he now has his wife's "long hair" in that she has now become his "covering". At the same time, seeing how the man's wife has removed her spiritual covering, her own husband, Paul says that if such is not shameful, then she ought to also remove her natural covering or her long hair by shaving her head.

THIS is what Paul was actually discussing here and THIS was all said in relation to the relationship between A MAN AND HIS OWN WIFE, so, again, neither you nor anybody else has any right whatsoever to somehow twist or wrest scriptures such as these in your attempts to make them somehow apply to "all women" in all circumstances. Yes, everything that I've just covered pertains directly to "the great mystery" which Paul wrote of in his epistle to the Ephesians. Again, we read:

Ephesians chapter 5

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
[32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
[33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Yes, when God ordained marriage all the way back "in the beginning" or all the way back in Genesis, He ordained for the natural union between a man and his own wife to mirror the spiritual union between Christ, the Bridegroom, and his church, the bride. As such, any husband who refuses to lay down his own life for his own wife as Christ did for the church is, figuratively speaking, teaching THE WORLD that Christ refuses to lay down His life for the church. Similarly, any wife who refuses to submit to and reverence her own husband is, figuratively speaking, teaching THE WORLD that the church need not submit to or reverence Christ.

This isn't a game, folks, and whether we're husbands or wives, we will all have to give an account before Christ one day in regard to how we either properly represented Him and His church TO THE WORLD or in regard to how we misrepresented Him and His church TO THE WORLD in relation to the same. We'd all be wise to lay these truths up in our hearts and to live accordingly.

 

[AVoice]

What y'all are missing is that was tradition for the men to sit in one area and the women sat in another area and what was happening is this, the woman did not understand what the speker was saying and she would shout to her husband to explain and it disrupted the service. This why Paul said wait till you get home and then ask your husband what was meant by the speaker. It by no means disqualifies a woman speaker.

That doesn't fit with what Paul said concerning authority as based on God's intention at creation.
What you have done is provide a reason for WHY it was said, which reasoning undermines what was literally said.
Where have we seen that before?

Gen 3:
3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
[SUP]3 [/SUP]But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
[SUP]5 [/SUP]For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

In verse 5 Satan's declares a REASON for God saying not eat of that fruit. That reason in effect provided justification for doing what was literally prohibited.
The NT literally prohibits women from speaking in the church. It is a shame, as Paul plainly declared.
And Paul, anticipating disagreement, also said; "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant".

People will always find excuses and reasons to justify prohibitions that they disagree with. We see this also with the prohibitions of men having long hair and with homosexuality, for example.

It is true that it is a shame for women to speak in the church, it is also true that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, and it is also true that homosexuality is a shame, a much greater shame and a sin against nature.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Whether the woman is married or not matters nothing to the fact that women, all women, married or single are to keep silence in the coming together. The role of addressing the assembly is a position of authority that belongs to the head, the man.

1 Tim 2:
[SUP]8 [/SUP]I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
[SUP]10 [/SUP]But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This section is not about the coming together. This is instruction in general. Notice the general topic of authority. Hence any woman does not take the floor in addressing the assembly based on God's designated role for the woman to not bear that kind of authority. That honour and authority of addressing the assembly belongs to the man, not the woman. That is just how the Father has ordained the service of the coming together to be conducted. Notice this instruction has NOTHING to do with prevailing cultural practices. This is based on God's intention FROM CREATION.

Are you kidding me?

How can you be so blind as to, once again, miss THE ACTUAL CONTEXT of Paul's words?

AGAIN, Paul alluded all the way back to Adam and Eve, THE FIRST HUSBAND AND WIFE, and, AGAIN, Paul spoke of how "the woman" or THE WIFE might be "saved in childbearing". AGAIN, if you believe, for even a single second, that Paul was somehow here referring to "all women" and not SPECIFICALLY TO WIVES, then you're out of your mind. AGAIN, do you think that Paul was here PROMOTING CHILDBEARING OUTSIDE OF THE MARRIAGE COVENANT?

GIve it a rest...you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Kerry]

That doesn't fit with what Paul said concerning authority as based on God's intention at creation.
What you have done is provide a reason for WHY it was said, which reasoning undermines what was literally said.
Where have we seen that before?

Gen 3:
3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
[SUP]3 [/SUP]But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
[SUP]5 [/SUP]For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

In verse 5 Satan's declares a REASON for God saying not eat of that fruit. That reason in effect provided justification for doing what was literally prohibited.
The NT literally prohibits women from speaking in the church. It is a shame, as Paul plainly declared.
And Paul, anticipating disagreement, also said; "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant".

People will always find excuses and reasons to justify prohibitions that they disagree with. We see this also with the prohibitions of men having long hair and with homosexuality, for example.

It is true that it is a shame for women to speak in the church, it is also true that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, and it is also true that homosexuality is a shame, a much greater shame and a sin against nature.

Jesus didn't fit either and He still don't fit in most churches today.

 

[AVoice]

Even if such is true, then you still have no right whatsoever to twist or wrest Paul's words as recorded in I Corinthians 14:34-35 as an alleged "proof text" for the same and I'll publicly and personally call you or anybody else out every time that any of you seek to do the same.

"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. 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." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Again, CONTEXTUALLY, Paul was specifically addressing WIVES who were to inquire of THEIR HUSBANDS AT HOME. Yes, CONTEXTUALLY, these are the "women" for whom it was "a shame to speak in the church". Again, this is precisely why Paul alluded to Genesis 3:16 as his "proof text" for the same and, again, there, we read:

"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." (Genesis 3:16)

Again, THE CONTEXT of this "command" (I Corinthians 14:34) is that of A HUSBAND AND HIS WIFE and nothing that you or anybody else on the face of the earth could ever say is going to change THIS FACT. If you think for even a moment that God was speaking of "all women" here, then, quite frankly, you're out of your mind. In no way, shape or form would God ever be talking about "bringing forth children" OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT OF MARRIAGE. Furthermore, when God told Eve that her "desire" was going to be TO HER HUSBAND, He wasn't suggesting that she was somehow going to be "desiring" Adam in some sort of romantic way. No, rather, her "desire" was directly related to her "desire" to RULE OVER ADAM and God therefore countered the same by saying "and he shall RULE OVER thee". In fact, we see this same exact type of Satanically inspired "desire" being spoken of in the very next chapter of Genesis where we read:

Genesis chapter 4

[1] And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
[2] And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
[3] And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
[4] And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
[5] But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
[6] And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
[7] If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Here, sin is actually PERSONIFIED ("HIS desire"..."over HIM") in that Cain "was of that wicked one" (I John 3:12) because he opened "the door" to Satan by refusing to "do well". Anyhow, my point is that Satan "desired" Cain in that he wanted to RULE OVER HIM and, again, for this very reason, God countered Satan's "desire" for Cain by admonishing Cain to "RULE OVER HIM".



Well, seeing how you mentioned "a meek and quiet spirit", again, I'll begin by addressing THE CONTEXT of the same:

I Peter chapter 3

[1] Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
[2] While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
[3] Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
[4] But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
[5] For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
[6] Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Again, THE CONTEXT is that of WIVES BEING IN SUBJECTION TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS and nothing that you or anybody else could ever say or suggest is going to change THIS FACT. Even in the example given, Sarah was Abraham's WIFE, so stop trying to make scriptures say that beyond which they actually do say. IOW, these scriptures do NOT pertain to "all women", but, rather, SPECIFICALLY TO WIVES IN RELATION TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS. Seeing how you also mentioned how "a woman may prophesy" and how "it is also a shame for a man to have long hair", I'll now address the portion of scripture which deals with the same:

I Corinthians chapter 11

[1] Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
[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.

When Paul said that "the head of the woman is the man", CONTEXTUALLY, what was he saying? Was he somehow referring to "all women" as you suggest? No, he was not and I'll not only prove the same FROM THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of Paul's words, but also FROM THE CONTEXT of what Paul said elsewhere in relation to the same. For example, elsewhere, we read:

Ephesians chapter 5

[22] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
[23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
[24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
[25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
[26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
[27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
[28] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
[29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
[30] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
[32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
[33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Again, THE CONTEXT is that of WIVES AND THEIR OWN HUSBANDS. Yes, IN THIS CONTEXT, "the husband is the head of the wife" or "the head of the woman is the man" (I Corinthians 11:3). Having established the same which will only be confirmed as we continue on with THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of what follows in I Corinthians chapter 11, we read:

I Corinthians chapter 11

[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.

Again, that THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT is that of A HUSBAND AND HIS OWN WIFE ought to be obvious in that Paul alluded all the way back to THE FIRST HUSBAND AND WIFE, Adam and Eve, in that Adam "was the image and glory of God: but the woman", Eve, "was the glory of the man", Adam (vs. 7). Again, "the man", Adam, "was not of the woman", Eve, "but the woman", Eve, "was of the man", Adam (vs. 8), in that she was made from Adam's rib. Furthermore, "neither was the man", Adam, "created for the woman", Eve, "but the woman", Eve, "was created for the man", Adam (vs. 9), to be his helpmate. With such a CONTEXTUAL reality before us, what was Paul actually seeking to teach here? Well, while addressing the topic of God-given authority, Paul set the order in the following manner:

1. God is Christ's head (I Corinthians 11:3).
2. Christ is the head of every man or, CONTEXTUALLY, the head of every husband (I Corinthians 11:3).
3. The man or, CONTEXTUALLY, the husband is the head of the woman or, CONTEXTUALLY, his own wife.

IOW, the God-given order of delegated authority ought to look like this:

God
Christ
Husband
Wife

What, then, happens to this God-given order of delegated authority if/when a man's wife usurps his God-given authority over her? Well, the God-given order of delegated authority now gets perverted and looks like this:

God
Christ
Wife
Husband

IOW, now that a man's wife has usurped his God-given authority over her, spiritually or figuratively speaking, she has now "covered his head" by coming between him and his delegated head, Christ, and, spiritually or figuratively speaking, he now has his wife's "long hair" in that she has now become his "covering". At the same time, seeing how the man's wife has removed her spiritual covering, her own husband, Paul says that if such is not shameful, then she ought to also remove her natural covering or her long hair by shaving her head.

THIS is what Paul was actually discussing here and THIS was all said in relation to the relationship between A MAN AND HIS OWN WIFE, so, again, neither you nor anybody else has any right whatsoever to somehow twist or wrest scriptures such as these in your attempts to make them somehow apply to "all women" in all circumstances. Yes, everything that I've just covered pertains directly to "the great mystery" which Paul wrote of in his epistle to the Ephesians. Again, we read:

Ephesians chapter 5

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
[32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
[33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Yes, when God ordained marriage all the way back "in the beginning" or all the way back in Genesis, He ordained for the natural union between a man and his own wife to mirror the spiritual union between Christ, the Bridegroom, and his church, the bride. As such, any husband who refuses to lay down his own life for his own wife as Christ did for the church is, figuratively speaking, teaching THE WORLD that Christ refuses to lay down His life for the church. Similarly, any wife who refuses to submit to and reverence her own husband is, figuratively speaking, teaching THE WORLD that the church need not submit to or reverence Christ.

This isn't a game, folks, and whether we're husbands or wives, we will all have to give an account before Christ one day in regard to how we either properly represented Him and His church TO THE WORLD or in regard to how we misrepresented Him and His church TO THE WORLD in relation to the same. We'd all be wise to lay these truths up in our hearts and to live accordingly.

The discussion is about women not speaking in church. With your emphasis on wives, are you suggesting that somehow some of the single sisters can speak in the church?
It is understood that when the prohibition on women speaking in the church is made, (even though spoken in context to the married women), that the single women are very much included. If the married women are not to speak, (they normally having a natural higher status than the single sisters), then how much more are the single included in that prohibition.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

...it is also true that it is a shame for a man to have long hair...

Hogwash.

Paul said:

I Corinthians chapter 11

[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.

What is it about "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" that you don't understand?

Again, if A WIFE USURPS HER OWN HUSBAND'S AUTHORITY, then she comes between him and his head, Christ, thereby becoming her husband's "covering". IOW, figuratively speaking, her husband now has her "long hair". THIS is what Paul was talking about and not the nonsense that you're going on about.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

The discussion is about women not speaking in church. With your emphasis on wives, are you suggesting that somehow some of the single sisters can speak in the church?
It is understood that when the prohibition on women speaking in the church is made, (even though spoken in context to the married women), that the single women are very much included. If the married women are not to speak, (they normally having a natural higher status than the single sisters), then how much more are the single included in that prohibition.

Oh, so, according to you, both Paul and Peter went out of their ways TO SPECIFY WIVES AND THEIR OWN HUSBANDS, but, in reality, they were talking about "all women"?

You really do need to learn the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. IOW, you really need to stop replacing what the writers of scripture actually said with your own BIASES AND PRESUPPOSITIONS.

 

[ELECT]

It is true that is the passage referenced by everyone I can find on this verse, I have never considered that to be part of the law.
"as also saith the law" seems to me to be talking about something in the law that specifically addresses a womans place in public assembly.

None of you sabbath or law keepers have anything here? Perhaps you don't know as much about the law as you have led us to believe.

What is a statute , precept ?

 

[AVoice]

How can you be so blind as to, once again, miss THE ACTUAL CONTEXT of Paul's words?

It sure seems you are disagreeing with me and I am saying that all women (single or married) are included in the prohibition for women to speak in the church.
So please explain under what circumstances a single sister is allowed to address the assembly in that time of coming together.
Are you saying she can join along with the men in addressing the assembly any time the saints assemble for a service?
What is your rationale for why she can but the married cannot? What exactly are you pushing for?

 

[Kerry]

Better yet what is the Gospel can anyone tell me?

 

[Hizikyah]

Better yet what is the Gospel can anyone tell me?

Yahchanan (John) 5:14, Afterward, Yahshua found him in the sacred precincts and said to him: Behold, you are healed. Sin no more, or a worse thing will come upon you.

John (Yahchanan) 14:6, "Yahshua proclaimed to him: I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father, except through Me."

Luke 6:46, "And why call Me; Ruler! Ruler! and do not the things which I say?"

Romans 2:4-12, “Or do you despise the riches of His kindness, forbearance, and longsuffering; not realizing that Yahweh’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But according to your stubborn and impenitent mind you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of Yahweh’s wrath, when the righteous judgment of Yahweh will be revealed; when He will reward each one according to his works: to the ones on the one hand, who, by patient persistence in doing righteousness, seek for glory, honor and immortality, He will give eternal life. But to the ones on the other hand, who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, He will give indignation and wrath.” Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man who does evil: to the Yahdai(Jew) first, and also to the Greek (Gentile) But glory, honor, and peace to every man who works righteousness: to the Yahdai first, and also to the Greek. For there is no respect of persons with Yahweh.For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.”

 

[ELECT]

All women are to keep silence in the time of the coming together when the assembly is addressed. The men only take the floor. Women are NOT delegated to that responsibility.
A woman may prophesy or be used by God in a powerful way within her place as a woman of a meek and quiet spirit outside of that time of coming together of the saints. But the assembly has an order to how the service is conducted. It is, as Paul said, a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
It is also a shame for a man to have long hair, for an example of how God has rules of conduct for both men and women within his body.

Can women sing ? is singing speaking ?

 

[ELECT]

Better yet what is the Gospel can anyone tell me?

How many gospels are there ?

 

[Kerry]

No only crooning men and they turn it it so loud that you can't tell and turn down the lights till it's almost dark, I thought that we were children of light. Turn the lights on please.

 

[Kerry]

How many gospels are there ?

Only one thats true. Do you know what it is?

 

[AVoice]

IOW, you really need to stop replacing what the writers of scripture actually said with your own BIASES AND PRESUPPOSITIONS.

In the above, you were responding to my post where I asked you a question:

With your emphasis on wives, are you suggesting that somehow some of the single sisters can speak in the church?

I then asked in another post two other questions:

Are you saying she (a single sister) can join along with the men in addressing the assembly any time the saints assemble for a service?
What is your rationale for why she can but the married cannot? What exactly are you pushing for?

If you do not intend to answer questions, then please let the people you are supposed to be discussing with know, so they will not waste their time asking you.

 

[Kerry]

Only one thats true. Do you know what it is?

well Guess not

 

[AVoice]

Can women sing ? is singing speaking ?

The context is when an actual gathering is called, a coming together, a service. See the context of 1 Cor 14:
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
[SUP]21 [/SUP]In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
[SUP]22 [/SUP]Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
[SUP]23 [/SUP]If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
[SUP]24 [/SUP]But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
[SUP]25 [/SUP]And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
[SUP]26 [/SUP]How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
[SUP]27 [/SUP]If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
[SUP]29 [/SUP]Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
[SUP]30 [/SUP]If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
[SUP]31 [/SUP]For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
[SUP]32 [/SUP]And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
[SUP]33 [/SUP]For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
[SUP]34 [/SUP]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.
[SUP]35 [/SUP]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.
[SUP]36 [/SUP]What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
[SUP]37 [/SUP]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.
[SUP]38 [/SUP]But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
[SUP]40 [/SUP]Let all things be done decently and in order.
The instruction concerning keeping silent is about taking the floor and addressing the assembly as a spokesperson, with a revelation, prophesy, tongue, doctrine, interpretation; see verses 26-33.
The special instruction concerning the women prohibits any taking of the floor such as for announcements etc., which is common in most modern churches today.
So no, she is not prohibited from singing in the service along with everyone else, since she is not being put in that place of being a spokesperson to address the listening assembly.

 

[AVoice]

Oh, so, according to you, both Paul and Peter went out of their ways TO SPECIFY WIVES AND THEIR OWN HUSBANDS, but, in reality, they were talking about "all women"?

You really do need to learn the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. IOW, you really need to stop replacing what the writers of scripture actually said with your own BIASES AND PRESUPPOSITIONS.

Am I correct that you do not have very much experience in discussion forums?