What did Paul mean when he said that women couldn't speak in church~? I just want to hear as many opinions as possible as there is a lot of debate about this.
I have no problem with a woman teaching me! If someone knows more or has a wise word, I don't care if it comes from man woman or child, and i have my own personal beliefs about this, namely that Paul was talking to married men at that 'particular' church at 'that particular time'.
Does anyone know the original 'lingual' intent of the passage where Paul forbade women to speak in church?
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" (1 Cor. 14:33b-36 NIV).
my opinion based on things i have read and heard.
AT that time and in that culture, the men sat up front and the women sat WAY in the back, not being able to hear very well they would yell out to thier husbands and ask questions because they wanted to know and desired to hear.
So to keep order and not have turmoil/turbulence.
paul says to wait till ya get home and discuss it.
niv is a bad translation.
33 For God is not for turbulence, but peace, as in all the ecclesias of the saints.
34 Let the women in the ecclesias hush, for it is not permitted to them to speak, but let them be subject, according as the law, also is saying.
35 Now, if they want to learn anything, let them be inquiring of their own husbands at home, for it is a shame for a woman to be speaking in the ecclesia.
36 Or from you came out the word of God? Or to you only did it attain?
37 If anyone is presuming to be a prophet or spiritual, let him be recognizing that what I am writing to you is a precept of the Lord.
38 Now if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant!
39 So that, my brethren, be zealous to be prophesying, and the speaking in languages do not forbid.
40 Yet let all occur respectably and in order.
peace
chuckt
The soul should be led by the spirit.
Just my opinion.
Quote from: chuckt on September 23, 2009, 07:14:51 PM
my opinion based on things i have read and heard.
AT that time and in that culture, the men sat up front and the women sat WAY in the back, not being able to hear very well they would yell out to thier husbands and ask questions because they wanted to know and desired to hear.
So to keep order and not have turmoil/turbulence.
paul says to wait till ya get home and discuss it.
niv is a bad translation.
33 For God is not for turbulence, but peace, as in all the ecclesias of the saints.
34 Let the women in the ecclesias hush, for it is not permitted to them to speak, but let them be subject, according as the law, also is saying.
35 Now, if they want to learn anything, let them be inquiring of their own husbands at home, for it is a shame for a woman to be speaking in the ecclesia.
36 Or from you came out the word of God? Or to you only did it attain?
37 If anyone is presuming to be a prophet or spiritual, let him be recognizing that what I am writing to you is a precept of the Lord.
38 Now if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant!
39 So that, my brethren, be zealous to be prophesying, and the speaking in languages do not forbid.
40 Yet let all occur respectably and in order.
peace
chuckt
Thats new to me, that was really interesting thank you.
I sometimes think it would have been a whole lot easier if the bible was actually translated so that it actually made sense....would really have made things a bit easier for everyone and caused a lot less problems.
QuoteThats new to me, that was really interesting thank you.
I sometimes think it would have been a whole lot easier if the bible was actually translated so that it actually made sense....would really have made things a bit easier for everyone and caused a lot less problems.
also think about them meeting in homes, the men sitting around discussing while the women were busy in the kitchen and while others tried to listen...ETC.
remember this:
Luk 10:40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
try and also remember the culture at that time when reading, also remember how paul always talked about ORDER in the meetings.
cool stuff...
God bless
chuckt
Quote from: chuckt on September 23, 2009, 08:38:24 PM
QuoteThats new to me, that was really interesting thank you.
I sometimes think it would have been a whole lot easier if the bible was actually translated so that it actually made sense....would really have made things a bit easier for everyone and caused a lot less problems.
also think about them meeting in homes, the men sitting around discussing while the women were busy in the kitchen and while others tried to listen...ETC.
remember this:
Luk 10:40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
try and also remember the culture at that time when reading, also remember how paul always talked about ORDER in the meetings.
cool stuff...
God bless
chuckt
It is cool, its just a shame half the world has a wrong translation of the bibl and probably uses it to suppress women or leads people to not like God because of it. Really makes me ask the question, why?
QuoteIt is cool, its just a shame half the world has a wrong translation of the bibl and probably uses it to suppress women or leads people to not like God because of it.
yes thats sad, i have learned wonderful spirirual truths from our sisters here and other forums.
QuoteReally makes me ask the question, why?
Pro 25:2 [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
1Cr 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you,
that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. :bgdance: :bgdance:
god bless
chuckt
:cloud9: From a natural, historical viewpoint, the women were of Jewish origin in the first churches, as the gospel went to the Jew first, then the gentiles. So you had women that by virtue of their birth, had been excluded from anything religious practically.
The NT has lots of women that were prophetesses (who definitely speak), and were disciples of the Lord, and add to that the fact He poured out His Spirit on ALL FLESH on the day of Pentecost and He said specifically that daughters would speak.
If I had lived during that time period I would have been so excited by the gifts of the Spirit operating in me, I'd have been hard to shut up, too! They were learning how to cooperate with the Spirit of God, and let HIM speak thru them, and the only order God has, is; WHATEVER GOD WANTS.
Spiritually speaking, the woman is as the soul of man, and "she" should never speak in place of the Spirit-man speaking. Blessings....
Quote from: Cardinal on September 24, 2009, 12:39:39 AM
:cloud9: From a natural, historical viewpoint, the women were of Jewish origin in the first churches, as the gospel went to the Jew first, then the gentiles. So you had women that by virtue of their birth, had been excluded from anything religious practically.
The NT has lots of women that were prophetesses (who definitely speak), and were disciples of the Lord, and add to that the fact He poured out His Spirit on ALL FLESH on the day of Pentecost and He said specifically that daughters would speak.
If I had lived during that time period I would have been so excited by the gifts of the Spirit operating in me, I'd have been hard to shut up, too! They were learning how to cooperate with the Spirit of God, and let HIM speak thru them, and the only order God has, is; WHATEVER GOD WANTS.
Spiritually speaking, the woman is as the soul of man, and "she" should never speak in place of the Spirit-man speaking. Blessings....
Thanks for this...well thats that matter solved!
Quote from: Cardinal on September 24, 2009, 12:39:39 AM
:cloud9: From a natural, historical viewpoint, the women were of Jewish origin in the first churches, as the gospel went to the Jew first, then the gentiles. So you had women that by virtue of their birth, had been excluded from anything religious practically.
The NT has lots of women that were prophetesses (who definitely speak), and were disciples of the Lord, and add to that the fact He poured out His Spirit on ALL FLESH on the day of Pentecost and He said specifically that daughters would speak.
If I had lived during that time period I would have been so excited by the gifts of the Spirit operating in me, I'd have been hard to shut up, too! They were learning how to cooperate with the Spirit of God, and let HIM speak thru them, and the only order God has, is; WHATEVER GOD WANTS.
Spiritually speaking, the woman is as the soul of man, and "she" should never speak in place of the Spirit-man speaking. Blessings....
Agreed! :thumbsup:
If Adam was a figure of Him who was to come (Christ) and Eve is a figure of THE CHURCH (made up of both male and female, according to the flesh) then perhaps it would be a good thing to keep in mind that "men" fall under "Eve" long before they fall under Adam and that even "women" receive "the adoption of sons" as we are ALL "conformed into the image of His Son".
There is only ONE "head" of the church/body of Christ and it only HE who has the power and authority to speak. :bigGrin:
Unless or until we have been "delivered of the child", we are not in any position to teach anyone.... we are still in need of one to teach us. :thumbsup:
(easy to say, but not always as easy to recognize... as we usually tend to believe what we believe and believe that
what we believe "is the truth" and fit for the spiritual consumption of others :mblush:) Must be why "there must be heresies among us". :grin:
I have a rather non-Biblical response:
I think such sayings were mentioned by Paul simply because of the society he lived in. Back then women were generally considered lesser than men, at least, as far as leadership is concerned. I mean, you can usually even see it in Middle-Eastern cultures today. I think, had Paul been living today, he would've probably never said that. I could be wrong... but that's my theory. I don't think God actually shuns people because they talk "in church" or wear long or short hair. It's the heart that matters, and that's for OUR benefit, not God's. It's not like He needs us to benefit Him anyway. His love for us is unwavering, and his ways are always FOR our benefit and blessing (consider: "Love [...] is not self-seeking, ...").
Also, interesting, on that note: If Love is NOT self-seeking, then no glory can come to God by "forced worship" or His throwing people into an eternal hell hole to suffer for an infinite period of time. That wouldn't be for man's benefit so God would be infinitely displeased with their position, and thus, never bring Him glory. Only heart-felt worship that brings peace to the worshipper will ever glorify God.
Paul is dealing with the Christian movement of the time which is framed in the coming out from under the law.
This movement would not be validated until the temple and the holy city were visibly destroyed.
Until that time some cultural aspects would be maintained, "Because of the angels" (Chapter 11).
Women (most likely wives in these contexts) were allowed to prophecy and the law allowed this as well, but they were not allowed to disrupt. A fine line but Paul had to draw it somewhere for "custom's sake" given the time.
"Because of the angels" (Chapter 11) means because of the law (See Hebrews 1 and 2 and elsewhere).
So also "as the law also says" (Chapter 14). This addressed who was made first.
During this time some Jewish customs were left in tact to accomplish the larger goal.
Notes:
To go to far and oblige the Gentiles to come under law as a Jew was called "the worship of angels" in Colossians.
To go to far on the other side was to falsely claim that God had completely abandoned Israel which is addressed in Romans chapters 10-11 and else where.
IMHO such things were not intended to be applied beyond the confines of this setting.
JMO Barry
:cloud9: I can see this. :thumbsup: Blessings....
Quote from: jesushandsarekindhands on September 23, 2009, 07:04:19 PM
What did Paul mean when he said that women couldn't speak in church~? I just want to hear as many opinions as possible as there is a lot of debate about this.
I have no problem with a woman teaching me! If someone knows more or has a wise word, I don't care if it comes from man woman or child, and i have my own personal beliefs about this, namely that Paul was talking to married men at that 'particular' church at 'that particular time'.
Well, you've hit upon one of the issues: as the Bible says from cover to cover, notably in Ecclesiastes for a more pointed comment, but it's all over the Bible, that you're not supposed to listen to poor people. Same thing with the issue of not listening to a fool. Proverbs talks about the quarelsome woman that it's better to live on the corner of the roof than with an inconsolable woman. You wouldn't want just anyone teaching you anything they could think of, since much of what many people think is between gibberish and spiritually and soulishly harmful. Just because Paul didn't want the women at the Church in Corinth opening their mouths doesn't mean he didn't ordain Lydia as the pastor of the Church at Philippi.
His pastoral epistles to Timothy and Titus simply express that women live wise lives of self restraint in speech and works that equally correspond and make sure that they'd preach what they practice. If they're not doing it, he wants 'em to shut up. It was a contextual thing regarding the women of some congregations remaining silent, rather than a universal thing when Galatians 3 and too many other passages in St. Paul's writings are too hard to square with that religious tradition that's been based on lifting that out of context, 'cause it says that there are no hereditary distinctions between men and women in Christ, but we're all one in Christ whether male or female, slave or free, et. al.
Quote from: martincisnerosCorinth opening their mouths doesn't mean he didn't ordain Lydia as the pastor of the Church at Philippi.
Hi Martin,
Can you give me a verse that points this out please?
CHB
Quote from: chuckt on September 23, 2009, 07:14:51 PM
my opinion based on things i have read and heard.
AT that time and in that culture, the men sat up front and the women sat WAY in the back, not being able to hear very well they would yell out to thier husbands and ask questions because they wanted to know and desired to hear.
So to keep order and not have turmoil/turbulence.
paul says to wait till ya get home and discuss it.
niv is a bad translation.
33 For God is not for turbulence, but peace, as in all the ecclesias of the saints.
34 Let the women in the ecclesias hush, for it is not permitted to them to speak, but let them be subject, according as the law, also is saying.
35 Now, if they want to learn anything, let them be inquiring of their own husbands at home, for it is a shame for a woman to be speaking in the ecclesia.
36 Or from you came out the word of God? Or to you only did it attain?
37 If anyone is presuming to be a prophet or spiritual, let him be recognizing that what I am writing to you is a precept of the Lord.
38 Now if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant!
39 So that, my brethren, be zealous to be prophesying, and the speaking in languages do not forbid.
40 Yet let all occur respectably and in order.
peace
chuckt
This has been my understanding also, I have a couple friends that think Paul was a woman hater, I haven't understood how they believe this.
I think Paul meant not to chatter in church. It is disrespectful to the Word being taught.
Men should not chatter either.
The church is a 'woman'. The teacher is the Holy Spirit. Can't shut HIM up.. lol
As far as 'she' is to ask her husband... Her HUSBAND had better be Christ, Right?
shine
:cloud9: AMEN Shine..... :thumbsup:
Quote from: jesushandsarekindhands on September 23, 2009, 07:04:19 PM
What did Paul mean when he said that women couldn't speak in church~? I just want to hear as many opinions as possible as there is a lot of debate about this.
I have no problem with a woman teaching me! If someone knows more or has a wise word, I don't care if it comes from man woman or child, and i have my own personal beliefs about this, namely that Paul was talking to married men at that 'particular' church at 'that particular time'.
Does anyone know the original 'lingual' intent of the passage where Paul forbade women to speak in church?
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" (1 Cor. 14:33b-36 NIV).
This is nothing more than a scribal addition...
For as it turns out, the verses in question (vv. 34-35) are shuffled around in some of our important textual witnesses. In three Greek manuscripts and a couple of Latin witnesses, they are found not here, after verse 33, but later, after verse 40. That has led some scholars to surmise that the verses were not written by Paul but originated as a kind of marginal note added by the scribes, possibly under the influence of 1 Timothy 2. The note was then inserted in different places of the text of various scribes—some placing the note after verse 33 and others inserting it after verse 40.
There are other good reasons for thinking that Paul did not originally write these verses.
For one thing, they do not fit well into their immediate context. In this part of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is addressing the issue of
prophecy in the church, and is giving instructions to the Christian prophets concerning how they are to behave during the Christian service of worship. This is the theme of verse 26-33, and it is the theme again of verse 36-40. If one removes versus 34-35 from their context, the passage seems to flow seamlessly as a discussion of the role of the Christian prophets.
The discussion of woman appears, then, as intrusive in its immediate context, breaking into the instruction that Paul is giving about a different matter.
Not only do the verses seem intrusive in their context of chapter 14, they also appear anomalous with what Paul explicitly says elsewhere in 1 Corinthians. For earlier in the book, as we have already noticed, Paul gives instructions to women speaking in the church: according to Chapter 11, when they pray and prophecy--activities that were always done aloud in the Christian services of worship-- they are to be sure to wear veils on their heads (11;2–16). In this passage which no one doubts Paul wrote, it is clear that Paul understands that women can and do speak in church. In the disputed passages of chapter 14, however, is equally clear that "Paul" for bids women from speaking at all. It is difficult to reconcile these two views--either Paul allowed women to speak (with heads covered, Chapter 11) or not (chapter 14). As it seems unreasonable to think that Paul would flat out contradict himself within a short spaces of three chapters, it appears at the verses in question do not derive from Paul...
And so on the basis of a combination of evidence to several-- manuscript that shuffle the versus around, the immediate literary context, and the context within 1 Corinthians as a
whole--
it appears that Paul did not write first Corinthians 14:34-35. One would have to assume, then, that these versus are scribal alteration of the texts.
Paul
Well, I'm glad JHLH asked this question because all the various answers have been tremendously interesting to read.
I have always been suspicious of the writings that would seem to treat women unequally, in fact, it is the separation of of Eve from Adam that has caused most of the strife throughout the history of the whole world. I'm glad to read that at least one opinion is the possibility that Paul never wrote those verses. Jesus never treated women with contempt.
Anne
I personally would want almost indisputable evidence of transcription errors, and I've never before heard that's the case regarding these particular verses. In the things I've read and heard about the earliest manuscripts agreeing with each other up to 98 or 99% of the time, I've never seen that even hinted at. Supposing and presuming is such a slippery slope. Before long, I could just figure any # of passages that don't sit well with me must be spurrious. I
know me, I could do it if not careful :thumbdown:.
I could be wrong, but to me, it seems it would be more of a contextual issue as Martin addresses, and someone else about the cultural thing of women being in the back of the assembly and shouting out to their husbands. Interesting topic though. Aren't there hundreds of 'em? :bigGrin: Long hair on men's another one.
Quote from: martincisneros on October 28, 2009, 07:21:29 PM
It was a contextual thing regarding the women of some congregations remaining silent, rather than a universal thing when Galatians 3 and too many other passages in St. Paul's writings are too hard to square with that religious tradition that's been based on lifting that out of context, 'cause it says that there are no hereditary distinctions between men and women in Christ, but we're all one in Christ whether male or female, slave or free, et. al.
:cloud9: From my experience, the scriptures harmonize perfectly in the Spirit, because the Spirit wrote them. So while they may APPEAR to contradict, the PRECEPTS or spiritual principles that the Spirit "deposited" in them, always match up perfectly.
The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life. Some were written specifically to kill the flesh, and once the flesh in that area has been dealt with thru obedience to the letter, the Spirit (obedience) will reveal the hidden precept and set you free of the "tutors and governors" (sacrifice), for it better to be obedient, than to sacrifice. Blessings.....
I will politely disagree with Paul's points above. (If I have understood them correctly)
We have a clear connection between these two sections:
1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Cr 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.
1Cr 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
1Cr 14:34 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.
1Cr 14:35 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.
Paul's "as the law also says" and "because of the angels" is the same point (see my post above). He makes a similar point in 1 timothy chapter 2.
Both texts deal with "customs" that Paul has left in Corinth and indeed in all the churches to maintain order in the Churches.
1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Cr 14:37 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.
1Cr 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1Cr 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
1Cr 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
1Cr 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Corinth has a problem that is causing it to act out as if it is independent from the direction of Paul.
Paul is keeping peace between the Jews and the Gentiles prior to the destruction of the temple and the vanishing away of types and figures. Hence, "as the law also says" and "because of the angels".
Corinth is being affected by both the Judaizers and a Gentile separatist movement [I get this from 1 Corinthians 14 but won't get into that here]. Corinth is being pulled and tugged in two separate directions and it is causing disorder. And some of this disorder is being played out in husband and wife in the church.
The problem with that is that husband and wife depict Christ and his bride.
This is not an uncomplicated matter!
However is it because of the present time and present circumstances that these problems have substance. Notice Paul's point here:
1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. {Hence, as the law also says, and because of the angels, IE old covenant}
1Cr 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels {because types and figures have not yet vanished away and the Jewish Christians know this}.
1Cr 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. {actually all are one in Christ and this temporary situation will come to this conclusion}
1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
JMO Barry
Quote from: shine on November 10, 2009, 08:28:41 PM
I think Paul meant not to chatter in church. It is disrespectful to the Word being taught.
Men should not chatter either.
The church is a 'woman'. The teacher is the Holy Spirit. Can't shut HIM up.. lol
As far as 'she' is to ask her husband... Her HUSBAND had better be Christ, Right?
shine
Amen !!
Quote from: Cardinal on November 11, 2009, 03:18:50 PM
:cloud9: From my experience, the scriptures harmonize perfectly in the Spirit, because the Spirit wrote them. So while they may APPEAR to contradict, the PRECEPTS or spiritual principles that the Spirit "deposited" in them, always match up perfectly.
The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life. Some were written specifically to kill the flesh, and once the flesh in that area has been dealt with thru obedience to the letter, the Spirit (obedience) will reveal the hidden precept and set you free of the "tutors and governors" (sacrifice), for it better to be obedient, than to sacrifice. Blessings.....
Amen Card. I think I can safely say that the problem, at least 99.9% of the time, lies in me - my attitudes, my understanding, my willingness to be obedient.
Struggling right now with my flesh, my will, my need to continue denying myself (fixation with food - the wrong kinds). No contradiction in the scriptures - the contradictions are inside of me.
God's blessing, James.
:cloud9: I know the feeling.......
Quote from: Cardinal on September 24, 2009, 12:39:39 AM
Spiritually speaking, the woman is as the soul of man, and "she" should never speak in place of the Spirit-man speaking. Blessings....
I'm glad I found this again- I happened upon it last week when I first joined here and "poking about". So, Cardinal, I see you're a woman... and you put forth this statement that "the woman is as the soul of man". Someone else said "the soul should not lead the spirit".
I just feel this is correct, but it's a very "hard sell". We are so confused in modern times about gender roles and gender differences- perhaps there has never really been a time when there hasn't been confusion about this to one extreme or the other.
So, if I were to make a statement that "men and women operate from different perspectives and are fundamentally concerned about different things", Cardinal, would you be OK with that? Because I cannot find a woman anywhere who would agree. Instead, women generally believe "we are all born with clean slates and any perceived differences, besides the obvious physical ones, are purely from societal conditioning".
Is this fundamental "soul vs spirit" difference between the sexes truly what was behind God's prescribed order of things in the Old Testament, and was Paul carrying this over to the Church dispensation out of ignorance, as a Jew, or out of inspiration? Is it possible for women to "operate as men" in the Church? I remember reading one of the Psuedo-Gospels (Gospel of Thomas perhaps?) where Jesus was dealing with his disciples over his allowance of Mary Magdalene joining them, seemingly as an equal, and Jesus saying something like "she has become like a man". I'll try and find that again and re-post. The whole thing is rather interesting for discussion, but like I said before, it's difficult to find anybody willing to discuss it.
Dave
Yes- here it is:
Gospel of Thomas Collection-
114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
I haven't saw Cardinal here in a long while, I sure miss her.
:cloud9: Thanks SQ.....I've missed all of you on here, too! Finally got computer fixed, PTL!
Anyway; Dave, the only "woman" that is supposed to be expressing herself is the soul of HIM, which is the attributes of His nature or character, as it is moved by the works of the Holy Ghost, His Spirit, thru the gifts of the Spirit. One is the nature, one is the works.
The two together are to function as ONE, IN the believer, and it doesn't matter whether it's a male or female after the flesh for this to happen, which is why it says there is now neither male nor female IN, Christ (Spirit) Jesus (soul).
Jesus was one who possessed His female (soul under subjection to the Spirit), and thus could display the nature of Father and Mother;
which is why it says a man must leave Father and Mother and cleave unto his wife. He left Father and Mother and did cleave unto His wife (they are one BODY). Blessings....
"herself is the soul (female) of HIM, which is the attributes of His nature or character, as it is moved by the works of the (male) Holy Ghost"
That's what I meant Card.
In another thread I expounded it further.
No male, female.
Just unity in Christ.
No more duality — He never had a rib removed.
The complete and perfect man.
Quote from: CardinalJesus was one who possessed His female (soul under subjection to the Spirit), and thus could display the nature of Father and Mother
which is why it says there is now neither male nor female IN, Christ (Spirit) Jesus (soul).
Cardinal! WB! :bgdance:
Thanks for that. It explains to me why the Hebrew name for our Lord is the feminine form of the word for salvation.
"salvation"H3444
ישׁוּעה
y'shû‛âhyesh-oo'-aw
Feminine passive participle of H3467; something saved, that is, (abstractly) deliverance; hence aid, victory, prosperity: - deliverance, health, help (-ing), salvation, save, saving (health), welfare.
H3467ישׁע
yâsha‛yaw-shah'
A primitive root;
properly to be open, wide or free, that is, (by implication) to be safe; causatively to free or succor: - X at all, avenging, defend, deliver (-er), help, preserve, rescue, be safe, bring (having) salvation, save (-iour), get victory.
:cloud9: Thanks Molly! It has been a rough walk lately.....
And yes it does; and when He sat weeping over Jerusalem, it was as El Shaddai, the "many breasted" One, ie. the "hen" with her chicks. He manifested different aspects of the Godhead because He had the Spirit without measure. Blessings....
Better a late reply than no reply at all :winkgrin:
http://www.messengers-of-messiah.org/NewPDF/CMWomen2010WebsiteEd.pdf
Leadership: Page 47-60 ==> Many female leaders
Submission: Page 35-39 ==> A husband rules over his wife in a sense of providing food and protection. Also that leadership has to be earned by "Biblically correct behaviour". Being a man on itself is not a basis for rulership. And all of that is based on equallity. The man doesn't submit. The wife submits herself after she aproved his ways.