1 Corinthians 11:5, 14:34

[ade32]

I was reading through the Bible yesterday and came across the following passages -

"But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved. " 1 Corinthians 11:5

"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." 1 Corinthians 14:34

What is the general consensus on these and the material contained in Corinthians, and why are they not observed? They seems bizarre to me, but for some reason they are sticking with me and I'm starting to wonder which parts of the bible we should observe and which we shouldn't.

 

[Mea Culpa]

To be honest I don't totally understand the passage. I don't know exactly what to think here myself.

What I do know is that a lot of people feel that what Paul was talking about was a cultural issue, not a spiritual one. In other words, he was speaking to people of a specific culture - Corinthian.

I don't believe that it has any spiritual basis. I just wish there was more details as to why this was a big deal!!

Lord willing you will find an answer to your question - one better then mine! And then you come right back and tell me about it, ok?

In Him

 

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings Ade32,

"But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved. " 1 Corinthians 11:5

"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." 1 Corinthians 14:34

Here is some more fodder for the grist mill:

1 Timothy 2:9-15 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; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Ephesians 5:22-25 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;

Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.


In this rebellious age these are hard sayings which most women and often men too, reject and attribute to cultural traditions, yet you can see they were addressed to different communities of believers, all with their own cultural background. Believe it or not, this is the heart of God and His Son for women.

Women are NOT thought of as any lesser than men, but each have their own roles to play in God's scheme of things. If these things were obeyed we would have much less divorce in the Christian church and a lot more peace in the families.

All of the rebelliousness we see in the family higharchy stems from the curse of Adam and Eve. Read the story and you may understand.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[ade32]

But, if these things were observed, wouldn't the society look like an oppressed Islamic society out of the middle east (Saudi Arabia comes to mind or even Taliban Afghanistan?). I mean, we look at these countries with distaste for their treatment of women, but isn't our own bible also guilty of commanding the same thing?

Sure there'd be less divorce, but we also open the door for women to get stuck in abusive relationships as some men abuse their power in numerous ways.

Really the crux of the issue is that are we as Chrisitians guilty of selectively taking parts of the Bible and using them, while ignoring others, and if so, how do we determine which parts we should take and which parts we shouldn't?

 

[Mea Culpa]

But, if these things were observed, wouldn't the society look like an oppressed Islamic society out of the middle east (Saudi Arabia comes to mind or even Taliban Afghanistan?). I mean, we look at these countries with distaste for their treatment of women, but isn't our own bible also guilty of commanding the same thing?

Sure there'd be less divorce, but we also open the door for women to get stuck in abusive relationships as some men abuse their power in numerous ways.

Really the crux of the issue is that are we as Chrisitians guilty of selectively taking parts of the Bible and using them, while ignoring others, and if so, how do we determine which parts we should take and which parts we shouldn't?

It was a Middle Eastern society! But the cultures and the way that people dressed and did things back then are so much different than now. There might have been reasons that we don't know about why Paul would make that type of statement.

Their society was not a western democracy, so the way things worked in Corinth would be a lot different than we are used to.

I don't know 100% if all that is true, I am hazarding a guess. I think it is something that we will have to ask when we go Home.

 

[ade32]

It was a Middle Eastern society! But the cultures and the way that people dressed and did things back then are so much different than now. There might have been reasons that we don't know about why Paul would make that type of statement.

Their society was not a western democracy, so the way things worked in Corinth would be a lot different than we are used to.

I don't know 100% if all that is true, I am hazarding a guess. I think it is something that we will have to ask when we go Home.

But couldn't you also say that 'Oh, that was back then....sex outside of marriage is OK now, lying is OK now...homosexuality is OK now because things are different...'. I'm not advocating one thing or another, just asking questions...

 

[filosofer]

There is an underlying principle that is being worked out in the culture. Wearing the head covering is not the enduring principle, headship/authority is. At that time a woman with her head uncovered indicated a woman of loose morals and rebellious against authority. However, today that is not true. Thus, in our society the principle of headship/authority may be demonstrated differently.

 

[suzybeezy]

Just adding my two cents...

In 1 Corinthians 11:5, it says "But every woman praying or prophesying". To me this means that clearly it was understood that women would be praying and prophesying. "with her head unveiled dishonors her head". To me this means without protecting her mind from the enemy. "same as if she were shaved" - completely unprotected.

"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." 1 Corinthians 14:34 - I think this means that we need to be quiet to learn. and we can learn alot from our husbands.

 

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings Ade32,

May I suggest that you take all the verses you and I have presented and then one at a time present them to the Lord and ask that the Holy Spirit reveal the truth of the matter. It is His job to reveal to your heart what is true and what is not.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[Mea Culpa]

But couldn't you also say that 'Oh, that was back then....sex outside of marriage is OK now, lying is OK now...homosexuality is OK now because things are different...'. I'm not advocating one thing or another, just asking questions...

This is talking about head wear. It is like saying that we are all supposed to wear robes like the Apostles did. That is my point.

Obviously there was a reason for saying it. I believe that it is cultural. Wearing clothes doesn't make you a better Christian. Getting too carried away with that would be like following the Law again.

As for the letting women speak in Church. I think that there are basis for that, though I don't understand the context here exactly, I think that there are reasons why that has been set out.

Man is the picture of Christ, the Women is a picture of the Church in Marriage. Not allowing women to speak in Church would be keeping with this picture that God has set out.

I am not saying I know the answers, but what i am saying is that this is what I think, at this time. Maybe through all this God will show me something else.

But as for the head dress, I don't think it is that big a deal. It is not a spiritual issue, it is clothes. I don't want to be under law, and that is what this would do. Kind of like the Galatians trying to circumsise everyone. They didn't have to do that. God looks at the heart, not the...

It is also important to read this in context with the whole passage, and I for one have not done that.
Pax

 

[MrJim]

What about 1Cor11:10? Seems odd that angels are brought into this. It's also odd that we want to dismiss a didactic portion of scripture as cultural but immediately following is a passage about conduct at the Lord's Supper that would be considered valid.