Modesty for men and women

[HeLeadethMe]

I've definitely looked around and seen how women's "liberation" has lead to the degradation of marriage and family, the mass murder of unborn children, and forms of prostitution being seen as "empowering". women following their great grandmother Eve in taking what is forbidden to grasp power only to embrace death.

if it's any consolation, I don't blame women for this. this is what happens to society when men don't do their job of protecting, loving, and leading.

 

[HeLeadethMe]

I've definitely looked around and seen how women's "liberation" has lead to the degradation of marriage and family, the mass murder of unborn children, and forms of prostitution being seen as "empowering". women following their great grandmother Eve in taking what is forbidden to grasp power only to embrace death.

if it's any consolation, I don't blame women for this. this is what happens to society when men don't do their job of protecting, loving, and leading.

Women's lib arose and was carried from mostly hurting women, who had been hurt by men, I think that is true. It doesn't overlook the fact that the response of those women was rebellious and trying to solve the problem in a way that seemethed right to them, however neither is it helpful to overlook the part that men played. From what I've seen in my lifetime, there is a great need to have as much emphasis being put on how men ought to treat women, eg, dwell with them according to knowledge.......as there is on how woman ought to relate to men, respect, etc.

 

[archer75]

For the record, it is possible to "see through" even the most modest clothing (apart from maybe a giant opaque hamster ball).

For the record, it is possible to look an an "immodestly" dressed person and not be overwhelmed by sexual thoughts.

 

[tstor]

*cracks knuckles*

I thought the implication of (b) was one of improper sexual attractiveness, whereas things like how you present in the workplace may have little to do with sexuality.

Not necessarily.

I read the article and I found it wanting. The article starts off by quoting Galatians 3:28. I express no disagreement with the understanding put forth in this verse. Though the interpretation of Galatians 2:11–14 is absolutely astounding. The conclusion they draw from it is this:

The point is not the obliteration of God’s created differences between male and female, but that sexual differentiation does not determine the participation in Christ’s Church for persons created in the image of God.​

This is not at all what Paul's point was. His point was precisely what the article opened up with. It refers to the "spiritual reality of equal access to God through faith in Christ Jesus." It most certainly does not speak about participation in the church, as that is not even the topic that Paul is discussing. We can look at where Paul discusses the qualifications for pastoral ministry:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12; ESV)​

Seems rather clear to me. And I find it curious that the article did not even cite this passage once. The article goes on to cite 1 Corinthians 7:3–5 to show equality in marriage regarding authority over the body. Authority over the body, of course, is in reference to satisfaction drawn from the body (note that this passage has nothing to do with participation in the church). It then goes on to cite 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 to show that women do prophecy. I have no problem with that. They then quote 1 Corinthians 14:3, which states "the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation." Again, I have no issue with this. What I do have an issue with is their conclusion. That is that "the exercise of authority and teaching in the Church" for women is permitted because women can prophesy. This is completely wrong. Women can upbuild, encourage, and console others. There is nothing wrong with that at all. However, to take that and apply it to "authority and teaching in the Church" is a perfect example of reading into the text of Scripture. Especially in light of the very clear passage on qualifications for pastoral ministries (1 Timothy 2:12).

And in the very same chapter, Paul goes on to say:

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. (1 Corinthians 14:33-34; ESV)​

The article cites 1 Corinthians 11:10 to show "that women have authority." This is clearly not the meaning of this passage. Given the immediate context of the chapter, I have to agree with the entry given in Thayer's Greek Lexicon in regard to the use of exousian: "a sign of the husband's authority over his wife, i. e. the veil with which propriety required a woman to cover herself, 1 Corinthians 11:10 (as βασιλείαis used by Diodorus 1, 47 for the sign of regal power, i. e. a crown)."

Finally, the article ends with making mention of the women Paul brought up. They cite the following passages:

For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. (1 Corinthians 1:11; ESV)​

The article wants this passage to show that Chloe is the leader of a house church. I do not see that anywhere in the passage. Paul mentions that quarreling among the brothers had been reported to him by "Chloe's people." Who are they? What does it say about Chloe? We do not know. We could assume that she is the head of a significant family in Corinth, but that does not tell us anything about women in pastoral ministries.

Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. (Colossians 4:15; ESV)

Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. (Colossians 4:15; KJV)

Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in their house. (Colossians 4:15; ASV)​

This passage is cited by the article for the same reason as the previous one, but there is no discussion on the variances. As can be seen by the three translations I produced above, there is not one correct way of translating. I would not try and draw too many conclusions from such an ambiguous passage.

To Philemon our beloved fellow worker and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Philemon 1:2-3; ESV)​

This passage is also cited for the same reason. That is, to show that women were the leaders of house churches. Yet this passage, just like the past two, shows no such thing. All it does is show that Appihia potentially had a church in her house. There is nothing said about her leading it.

The next citation is Romans 16:6, 12. These two verses are cited to show that women did work within ministry. This is not an issue with me, as I only believe that the position of elder/pastor is limited to men, which is detailed in Scripture. Priscilla and Phoebe are also cited in the article. Again, there is nothing suggesting that they were involved in pastoral ministry.

There are a few other women mentioned in the article, but I believe the point has been made. Women can serve in ministry, as the Bible does not speak against this. The only restriction placed on women in ministry is that they cannot be elders/pastors. They cannot lead congregations or be the head spiritual teacher. They can help people, just as brothers help people at lower positions in the church. When I go to Sunday school, there are women who make comments and try to help others. There is nothing wrong with this. Here is a good article that I would recommend to you:
What roles can women fill in ministry?

No, I did not say that. I said that the way my grey grows in looks odd. I am a professional. There is no place for odd looking hair in professional life. It has nothing to do with "attractiveness" and everything to do with presenting a professional appearance. What I wear, how my hair is, etc. are all part of that professional appearance.

Choosing to live the professional life does not exclude you from being modest. Regardless of hair dye, do you consume yourself with your looks? When you wake up in the morning and prepare for a day in your professional life, how long does it take? Do you continually look at yourself in mirrors throughout the day to ensure that your professional look has not degraded?

In a previous post I did give my reasons for disagreeing with you. Starting with your subjective analysis of "modesty" and your evident ignorance as to why someone would do something like dye their hair. I assume you feel that ANY change in appearance, is "immodest". I also disagree with your statements that a woman needs to be "under" a man...well, I could say something about that but it's against TOS. I do not need to be under a man's "authority" as I am under only one authority, Jesus Christ. I also asked you a direct question about education for women which you ignored, so I'll ask it again...Where do you stand on education for women?

I gather that you disagree with me, as you have made that very clear. What you have not done is meaningfully engage with what I said in the original post (other than hair dye).

If you believe that man is not the head of woman, or an authority over woman, then what is your interpretation of this passage:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3; ESV)
​

And if you are under the authority of only Jesus Christ, does that mean you neglect these words:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17; ESV)​

Regarding your question, this is the first time you have asked. You did not ask me before, you just made a condescending statement about where I stand. I have no issue with women being educated.

Id argue that your reply to her was impolite and arrogant

I guess I was subconsciously returning the favor.

I disagree with YOUR interpretation which isnt shared by most. I cant help thinking your whole intent isnt so much about modesty and humility as it is about some outdated misogyny

Again, I have no issue with disagreement. Though I have no way of responding to "oh yeah, well I disagree with you!" Make a presentation of my position and then express where you disagree and why. I cannot attempt to engage with you on any meaningful level if you do not actually address what I said.

You are missing one important factor, there is neither Male nor Female in the body of Christ, hence I ask, Where are You?

Just because I am a Male with years under my belt does not automatically make me a mature Male, that is what a Man should be, yet we all know that is far from the reality of most so called Men.

Debrah was a Woman who rised to the occasion when there was no real man to do the job;

Let not a Woman, nor Man speak as a carnal being in the Church, for that is a Shame unto us all.

And there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but I do suppose you fill out your census checking off the box of male and insert race. When you apply for membership in a church, do they not ask for your gender? Does Paul not expressly qualify only men for pastoral ministry (1 Timothy 2:12)? Are we not to marry believers of the opposite gender? Do we not refer to fellow believers as brothers and sisters in Christ? We are one in Christ, but that does not mean we neglect our earthly situations.

And you are correct, there is a role for men as well as women. I briefly touched on this in my original post when I said:

However, we should not neglect the fact that men also have responsibilities in the relationship. Though I do not believe those responsibilities necessarily fall into the discussion of modesty.​

This is your most interesting point and almost a thread in itself... What if Paul stood in front of my school friends and I. Just because he hung out with Jesus and was a saint, of what relevance is Paul to my life today. Well, if as you say he'd lecture my friends and I on our capacity to lead and make decisions, id say..Paul Im more highly educated than you, and even at school we studied leadersip and communication... unlike yourself Paul. Paul you have not been around for 1950 years yet you have the gall to lecture me on contemporary society. Id also argue with him if he tried to tell me how to dress since his idea of a dress code woulnt get him into many establishments. Youre out of touch Paul. Talk to me about God and spirituality Paul and leave those matters that dont fit within your sphere of knowledge anymore.

This is "almost a thread in itself" because you reject the authority of Scriptures. I would encourage you to make a thread with what you just posted and let myself and other members comment on it. However, it is a bit far field for this particular thread. I would point you to the following passage though:

And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:13; ESV)
​

If males have the "divine right" to dominate females,
then America lives in continual rebellion against the "divine right" of England's monarchy.

I would not use the word "dominate," as that is not what I said. Though I agree that America lives in continual rebellion against the God-given order. Rulers, whether kings or other magistrates, do have a divine right. The people have made a covenant with the magistrate in that the magistrate will not become a tyrant and the people will not be tyrants either. If that covenant is broken, then the possibility of revolution/rebellion is advanced. I would point you to my post on another thread for a slightly fuller discussion on this:
Christian Libertarian...

 

[Zoii]

What the OP focusses on is the modesty of dress code for women n submission. The premise of the argument is that men are the leaders and women mustnt cause men to be overcome with sexual desire in the way they dress....
Let me bring you men up to speed..... if your intellect is a centrifuge with your penis at the centre, then youre no leader. This OP of itself has only proven just how frail the capacities of such men can be and certainly not ones I would respect and follow.

 

[tstor]

What the OP focusses on is the modesty of dress code for women n submission. The premise of the argument is that men are the leaders and women mustnt cause men to be overcome with sexual desire in the way they dress....
Let me bring you men up to speed..... if your intellect is a centrifuge with your penis at the centre, then youre no leader. This OP of itself has only proven just how frail the capacities of such men can be and certainly not ones I would respect and follow.

Not at all what my post was about. Please re-read it.

 

[Sam91]

With authority comes accountability and responsibility.

 

[HeLeadethMe]

Yes,

For the record, it is possible to "see through" even the most modest clothing (apart from maybe a giant opaque hamster ball).

For the record, it is possible to look an an "immodestly" dressed person and not be overwhelmed by sexual thoughts.

Agree......to a point......I believe from scripture there has to be some accountability on both sides.......nobody should be looking "through" anybody's clothing, we just should not entertain those kinds of thoughts. But at the same time we do not live to ourselves alone and should not put a stumbling block in the way of others by the way that we dress and conduct ourselves.

And for the record, I will say that at this time and place in history, I think that hair, make-up and jewelry can be worn modestly, without it causing anyone to stumble. Because otherwise we will end up thinking we have to go the whole way and try to look ugly on purpose and I dont' believe the Lord requires that.........Even those who were fasting were told to groom themselves and not look like they were fasting on purpose. Just don't go around with our faces looking tarted up like a painter's canvas, and with giant chandeliers dangling and glinting from our ears like fishing lures.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Choosing to live the professional life does not exclude you from being modest. Regardless of hair dye, do you consume yourself with your looks? When you wake up in the morning and prepare for a day in your professional life, how long does it take? Do you continually look at yourself in mirrors throughout the day to ensure that your professional look has not degraded?

Think about what you said...if I am a professional...and working in a professional capacity, when would I even have TIME to go admire myself in a mirror? And, how long is too long to get ready for the day? 30 minutes? An hour? Two hours? It takes as long as it takes. It depends. Do I have a meeting that day? Am I going to visit local high schools that day? On the flip side...if I'm going to go work on my car, what would I wear (hint, shorts and tank top) If I'm going hiking, what would I wear? If I'm going to the beach what would I wear? If I'm going out with my husband? If I'm going to church?

So...to you, I'm "immodest". I dye my hair, I get manicures and pedicures regularly. I LIKE to look nice. I LIKE to show off my wedding rings. I like wearing long dangly earrings (4 in each ear). Now...what does that have to do with how I live my life? Does that discount that I have built homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters? I LIVE modestly (small house, older cars) so I can give away the resources that most folks would pocket to enrich themselves. What I wear has nothing to do with the heart condition. You can dress "modestly" yet be immodest AND immoral. Its a heart condition not a clothing and adornment condition.

 

[HeLeadethMe]

Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gave good reason why woman are not to have leadership and authority over men, but are to remain covered........because Adam was not the one deceived, but Eve was deceived. That gives a hint as to our vulnerability as women. And we are covered (protected).......when we submit to being covered. But there is a big difference between being dominated and being in submission. The bible does not anywhere say that men are to dominate women. But women are to submit, voluntarily, to the authority of male leadership in the church, under Christ. We can exercise our SPIRITUAL gifts in church, under the Holy Spirit's unction, and submitted to the covering (protection) of said leadership.....decently and in order.

 

[PollyJetix]

Submission is always to be voluntary.
But is it voluntary if men are the ones trying to coerce women to submit?

1 Corinthians 14:34-35, for example... men have interpreted it in a way that bolsters their demands that women "submit voluntarily!"

However, "as also saith the law" cannot be supported by any verse in the Old Testament.
There is not one verse in the OT that says what 1 Corinthians 14:34 says.
Not. One. Verse.

However, what verse 34 says, is almost a word-for word quote from what was in Paul's day, the oral traditions of the Pharisees.

So, what was Paul doing? Was he quoting from the Pharisees, to try to force women to obey Pharisaical laws??

No. Correct interpretation requires us to realize that 1 Corinthians was written in answer to a letter full of questions, from the church, to Paul. We no longer have that letter of questions. All we have is Paul's response.

In the book of 1 Corinthians, Paul quotes questions from that lost letter.

But when translating from Greek to English, it is very easy to interpret a question as a statement.
You have to understand the context, to know if it's a question or a statement.

Look at I Corinthians 14:36. Paul begins with a forceful "WHAT?"
This is a Greek word that means, "NO!"
Or, "That is not right!"

And the rest of verse 36 tells us WHY verses 34 and 35 are not right.

Because the word of God came both to and through women, as well as men.
Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Mary, Anna, Elizabeth, "your sons AND YOUR DAUGHTERS'...

Therefore, men who wish to dominate women have interpreted Scripture in a way that brings women into ungodly slavery of a spiritual nature.
And they will answer to Almighty God for it.

 

[disciple1]

For this discussion, I will be utilizing several Bible passages. I will go ahead and produce them below:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2:8-15; ESV)​

Women should "adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works." What does this look like? What would a respectable, modest, and self-controlled woman look like? The reality is that modesty is a bit more than just looks. I will simply address looks first and then work through the other aspects of modesty. A modest woman is one who does not leave room for men to be tempted into sin by dressing revealingly. A modest woman is someone who does not dress to bring attention to herself. Modesty can be achieved by a woman concealing her body shape with loose fitting clothes. A modest woman will not manipulate her signs of age in order to be found more visually appealing to men. For example, a modest woman should not dye her hair, wear excessive makeup, or commit to cosmetic surgeries.

"Neither is the hair to be dyed, nor gray hair to have it’s color changed [...] Old age, which conciliates trust, is not to be concealed." - Clement of Alexandria​

Yet these things also apply to men. Men likewise should be careful not to dress immodestly. A modest man will wear loose-fitting clothes and not clothes that reveal the shape of the body. Modest men will not dress so as to draw attention to themselves. Modest men will not try to conceal their age with dyed hair or cosmetic surgery.

You will also note that the passage says women should not have "braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." I believe this is more than likely in reference to fashion trends at the time Paul wrote this letter and not necessarily a hard and fast rule for women of all eras. But that does not mean we cannot extract any meaning from this section. What we can gather from it is that women should not attempt to display their wealth in the form of jewelry or other designer apparel. I believe that the this can and should be applied to men as well. Men should not wear their wealth in the forms of jewelry. An example of something like this would be a Rolex wristwatch.

Regarding the braided hair, I believe that this is in reference to time-consuming fixations with hair. Or even costly and timely hair procedures at a salon. Women should not spend too much time trying to fix their hair and neither should men. We, both men and women, should not become consumed with the tendency to try and make our hair perfect. Do we not have more valuable things to spend our time on?

"If it is true, as it is, that in men, for the sake of women (just as in women for the sake of men), there is implanted, by a defect of nature, the will to please; and if this sex of ours acknowledges to itself deceptive trickeries of form peculiarly its own—such as to cut the beard too sharply; to pluck it out here and there; to shave round about the mouth; to arrange the hair, and disguise its hoariness by dyes; to remove all the incipient down all over the body; to fix each particular hair in its place with some womanly pigment [...] all these things are rejected as frivolous, as hostile to modesty." - Tertullian​

Modesty is not limited to just physical expressions (i.e., clothing, hair, makeup, etc.) but also mindsets and practices. I briefly touched on an immodest mindset with the example of time spent on hair. It is immodest to be consumed with the image of yourself. Whether this is hair, clothing, or something else. Our minds should not be overly occupied with our physical appearance, as our mind is to be occupied with the Lord. We are supposed to be humble, as Christ was. Christ is the perfect example of humility. He did not occupy His time considering Himself. Rather, He occupied His time with the problems of others. We should aim to be no different.

Nor is modesty limited to only mindsets regarding physical expressions. Paul goes on to say that a woman is to "learn quietly with all submissiveness. A woman is not permitted to "teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." This is the way of a modest woman. A modest woman knows her role in the hierarchy of social order. An immodest woman would seek to undermine this order that is established by God in order to advance herself. In other words, an immodest woman is not humble.

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20; ESV)​

This passage applies to both men and women. If a Christian man or woman dresses so as to bring attention to themselves for ungodly reasons then they are not glorifying God in their body.

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16; ESV)​

Again, we see the Scriptures reiterate the hierarchy of man being the head of woman. It is made plainly obvious through this passage that in Corinth they had a cultural tradition of women covering their heads to show submissiveness to the men. If a woman rejects this sign of submissiveness for the sake of self-gain, she should shave her head as it would be equally as shameful. Woman was created for man and it was not the other way around. Hence, she is to be submissive. However, we should not neglect the fact that men also have responsibilities in the relationship. Though I do not believe those responsibilities necessarily fall into the discussion of modesty. Modest women will respect their position as below men and submissive to men. They will remain humble and not seek to disturb the God-given order of things.

Regarding what Paul said about hair length, men should not grow long hair as there is no purpose in it. Women keep long hair to cover the pleasantness of their faces and the beauty that draws attention to them. This is not the case for men.

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:1-7; ESV)​

And, again, we are told of the hierarchy. Women are to be subject to men. Though it is in this passage that we see the true intention and reason behind modesty:

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.
​

Women are supposed to be humble in their relation to men. They are to respect man's God-given authority over them. Regarding physical modesty, the woman is to do this because the beauty of her spirit is so much more precious than that of external beauty. Submitting to a man and humbling oneself becomes easier when the man came to you for the preciousness of your spirit and not for the external signs that disappear in the grave. The external signs fade with age. And if the man came to you to honor your external shell, then how can that honor last?

I think your trying to add a lot of things that are not written.
Galatians chapter 5 verse 6
The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love.

 

[archer75]

Submission is always to be voluntary.
But is it voluntary if men are the ones trying to coerce women to submit?

1 Corinthians 14:34-35, for example... men have interpreted it in a way that bolsters their demands that women "submit voluntarily!"

However, "as also saith the law" cannot be supported by any verse in the Old Testament.
There is not one verse in the OT that says what 1 Corinthians 14:34 says.
Not. One. Verse.

However, what verse 34 says, is almost a word-for word quote from what was in Paul's day, the oral traditions of the Pharisees.

So, what was Paul doing? Was he quoting from the Pharisees, to try to force women to obey Pharisaical laws??

No. Correct interpretation requires us to realize that 1 Corinthians was written in answer to a letter full of questions, from the church, to Paul. We no longer have that letter of questions. All we have is Paul's response.

In the book of 1 Corinthians, Paul quotes questions from that lost letter.

But when translating from Greek to English, it is very easy to interpret a question as a statement.
You have to understand the context, to know if it's a question or a statement.

Look at I Corinthians 14:36. Paul begins with a forceful "WHAT?"
This is a Greek word that means, "NO!"
Or, "That is not right!"

And the rest of verse 36 tells us WHY verses 34 and 35 are not right.

Because the word of God came both to and through women, as well as men.
Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Mary, Anna, Elizabeth, "your sons AND YOUR DAUGHTERS'...

Therefore, men who wish to dominate women have interpreted Scripture in a way that brings women into ungodly slavery of a spiritual nature.
And they will answer to Almighty God for it.

Very informative, thank you. What's your source? Or is this your own reading?

 

[PollyJetix]

Very informative, thank you. What's your source? Or is this your own reading?

I've done a lot of study. Many sources. Mostly the Bible itself, and the Mishnah... and common sense to sort it out, with the help of the Holy Ghost.

 

[tstor]

Think about what you said...if I am a professional...and working in a professional capacity, when would I even have TIME to go admire myself in a mirror? And, how long is too long to get ready for the day? 30 minutes? An hour? Two hours? It takes as long as it takes. It depends. Do I have a meeting that day? Am I going to visit local high schools that day? On the flip side...if I'm going to go work on my car, what would I wear (hint, shorts and tank top) If I'm going hiking, what would I wear? If I'm going to the beach what would I wear? If I'm going out with my husband? If I'm going to church?

Indeed, the Christian conscience plays a role. There is no set time for any person. For me, I take a grand total of about five minutes to get ready every day. In my mind, anything past 30 minutes is far too long and it goes beyond just the bare necessities.

Different occasions demand longer periods of time, of course. If I have to wear a suit and tie or even a tuxedo (generally for a wedding) it takes me longer because I am presenting myself on behalf of other people and not just myself. Yet I never slip into immodesty.

So...to you, I'm "immodest". I dye my hair, I get manicures and pedicures regularly. I LIKE to look nice. I LIKE to show off my wedding rings. I like wearing long dangly earrings (4 in each ear). Now...what does that have to do with how I live my life? Does that discount that I have built homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters? I LIVE modestly (small house, older cars) so I can give away the resources that most folks would pocket to enrich themselves. What I wear has nothing to do with the heart condition. You can dress "modestly" yet be immodest AND immoral. Its a heart condition not a clothing and adornment condition.

Indeed. I specifically said in my post that modesty goes beyond physical expressions. Or did you skip that part?

 

[faroukfarouk]

With authority comes accountability and responsibility.

Yes, this is true. I think there have been various good posts on this thread.

 

[archer75]

With authority comes accountability and responsibility.

Those who are most attracted to authority tend to have no interest in accountability and responsibility.

 

[tstor]

However, "as also saith the law" cannot be supported by any verse in the Old Testament.
There is not one verse in the OT that says what 1 Corinthians 14:34 says.
Not. One. Verse.

To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16; ESV)​

Look at I Corinthians 14:36. Paul begins with a forceful "WHAT?"
This is a Greek word that means, "NO!"
Or, "That is not right!"

And the rest of verse 36 tells us WHY verses 34 and 35 are not right.

Here is the Westcott and Hort text:
Ἢ ἀφ' ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν;

Which word means "no" or "that is not right"?

Therefore, men who wish to dominate women have interpreted Scripture in a way that brings women into ungodly slavery of a spiritual nature.
And they will answer to Almighty God for it.

No. Men have interpreted the Scriptures correctly since the first-century in regard to this issue. Modern feminists have decided to twist Scriptures to fit their worldly desire.

 

[archer75]

To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16; ESV)​

But surely this applies only to Eve? I mean...if we're being literal and all.

 

[Sam91]

I dyed my hair last week. First time since November, before that it was a couple of years ago.

Why, vanity? Maybe... it was faded by my hair colour kind of fading. What colour, dark brown.. the colour my gair was before my thyroid messed up. Who am I trying to impress? No one. I just want to look a little tidier than I have been. Strengthens your testimony if you don't look a mess.

As for make up, I wear very little. Just enough to not look tired.

Modest? I hope so. My body is never on show. Legs, shoulders, chest covered

Unfortunately, my clothes are old. Which I don't mind (don't like to give much thought to what I wear as long as its smart enough for each situation). However, my friend thinks I need to go out and buy new clothes, especially some dresses. I said if I wear dresses people more likely to look at me and I don't want to draw attention incase it causes sin.

I think dyeing my hair was ok. You don't want people to think your unhinged for following christ. If you look too frumpy they aren't likely to want to know more about Christ. It's like deliberately making yrself look like your fasting and making yourself a spectacle to not make any effort at all.

It takes me about 5-8 minutes to get ready in the morning. 20 for church if I'm straightening my hair. Which has only been done a few times in the last year. If not 5-8 minutes.