He was not married, he had a problem with women, 'Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.'
Does your wife keep silent?
Explain this one, 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.' No straight man ever said that, plus the first mitzvot is be fruitful and multiply.
What else has he written? His first chapter in Romans deals with homosexuality. Hmm, there's a clue. And finally, 'Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.'
Well the lion has a mane and the lioness short hair so nature says what? And his last comment 'we have no such custom' renders that argument mute, it's the verbal equivalent of a dog chasing his tail.
And the last comment is about fashion, and who knows fashion better than gay men? And do I have to tell you what a 'thorn in the flesh' describes? Well Yakkov wrote 'Confess your trespasses to one another' so looks like he did.
Now I know why his work is called 'The Pauline Letters.'
The guy had three names. Shaul to the Hebrews, Paul to the goyim and Pauline on Saturday night.
RE: Does your wife keep silent?
Explain this one, ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman.’ No straight man ever said that, plus the first mitzvot is be fruitful and multiply.
_________________________
Let’s explain: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
Here, “touch” is used in the sense of having sexual relations. This was probably a statement made by the Corinthian Christians, which they asked Paul to agree with. Paul will agree with the statement, but with reservation - the “nevertheless” of verse 2.
1. Why would the Corinthian Christians suggest complete celibacy - which is what they mean by a man not to touch a woman? They probably figured that if sexual immorality was such a danger, then one could be more pure by abstaining from sex altogether, even in marriage.
2. The idea that marriage was a less holy state than celibacy, naturally led to the conclusion that married persons ought to separate, and it soon came to be regarded as an evidence of eminent spirituality when such a separation was final.
And you cannot simply take one sentence in isolation. Paul CONTINUED:
“Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.”
So, In light of the danger of sexual immorality (ever present in the Corinthian culture and our own), it is appropriate for husband and wife to have each other in a sexual sense.
So, the explanation comes thusly:
1. Paul is not commanding the Corinthian Christians to get married (an issue he deals with later in the chapter), but a command to live as a married person, especially in the sexual sense. Paul means that husbands and wives should continue in sexual relations.
2. Paul is not saying sex is the only reason for marriage, or the most important reason for marriage. Paul is simply answering their specific questions about marriage, not trying to give a complete theology of marriage.
3. For more on a complete theology of marriage, see Ephesians 5:21-33 and Colossians 3:18-19.
Suffice it to say that you cannot simply pick one sentence in Paul’s epistle without reading the entire chapter and cross referencing it with what he said in other epistles of his on the same topic.
The complete statement Paul made IN CONTEXT is this:
“Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.”
So, if you want to understand what Paul is trying to say , you have to do some exegesis of the words in the above statement of his. Let’s look at some of his phrases in turn...
a. Instead of a man not to touch a woman, within marriage a husband must render to his wife the affection due her. It is wrong for him to withhold affection from his wife.
b. The affection due her is an important phrase. Since Paul meant this to apply to every Christian marriage, it shows that every wife has affection due her. Paul doesn’t think only the young or pretty or submissive wives are due affection; every wife is due affection because she is a wife of a Christian man.
c. Paul also emphasizes what the woman needs: not merely sexual relations, but the affection due her. If a husband has sexual relations with his wife, but without true affection to her, he is not giving his wife what she is due.
d. Affection also reminds us that when a couple is unable - for physical or other reasons - to have a complete sexual relationship, they can still have an affectionate relationship, and thus fulfill God’s purpose for these commands.
e. On the same idea, also the wife to her husband: The wife is not to withhold marital affection from her husband. Paul strongly puts forth the idea that there is a mutual sexual responsibility in marriage. The husband has obligations toward his wife, and the wife has obligations toward her husband.
f. Render to his wife: The emphasis is on giving, on “I owe you” instead of “you owe me.” In God’s heart, sex is put on a much higher level than merely the husband’s privilege and the wife’s duty.
g. The wife does not have authority over her own body: In fact, these obligations are so concrete, it could be said that the wife’s body does not even belong to herself, but to her husband. The same principle is true of the husband’s body in regard to his wife.
h. This does not justify a husband abusing or coercing his wife, sexually or otherwise. Paul’s point is that we have a binding obligation to serve our partner with physical affection.
i. It is an awesome obligation: out of the billions of people on the earth, God has chosen one, and one alone, to meet our sexual needs. There is to be no one else.
j. Do not deprive one another: Paul rejects their idea that husband and wife could be more holy by sexual abstinence. In fact, harm can come when they deprive one another, as they open the door to the tempter (so that Satan does not tempt you).
k. The word for deprive is the same as defraud in 1 Corinthians 6:8. When we deny physical affection and sexual intimacy to our spouse, we cheat them.
k. Do not deprive: Sexual deprivation in marriage has not only to do with frequency, but with romance also. This is why Paul tells husbands to render to his wife the affection due her. Deprivation in either sense gives occasion for the deprived to look elsewhere for fulfillment - and to destroy the marriage.
l. For your lack of self-control: It might be easy to think that self-control is expressed by abstaining from sexual relations in marriage, but Paul says that to deprive one another is to show a lack of self-control, and a lack of self-control that will leave one easily tempted by Satan.
m. I say this as a concession: God will permit (reluctantly, as a concession) a married couple to abstain from sexual relations for a short time, for the sake of fasting and prayer. But if this concession is used, it is only to be for a time, and then husband and wife must come together again in a sexual sense.
n. Not as a commandment: God does not command or even recommend abstaining from sex within marriage, but it can be done for a brief time for a specific spiritual reason.
o. The principle in this passage is important. God makes it clear that there is nothing wrong, and everything right, about sex in marriage. Satan’s great strategy, when it comes to sex, is to do everything he can to encourage sex outside of marriage, and to discourage sex within marriage. It is an equal victory for Satan if he accomplishes either plan.
p. This can be seen in the way some of the Corinthian Christians thought it was just fine to hire the services of a prostitute (as in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20), and other Corinthian Christians thought it was more spiritual for a husband and wife to never have sexual relations.
q. A Christian husband and wife must not accept a poor sexual relationship. The problems may not be easily overcome or quickly solved, but God wants every Christian marriage to enjoy a sexual relationship that is a genuine blessing, instead of a burden or a curse.
Therefore, Paul recognizes the benefits of singleness, but also of marriage; all is according to how God gifts.
HE SAID:
For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
SIMPLY STATED, Paul will affirm celibacy, but not because sex itself is evil (as some of the Corinthian Christians thought). Instead, the unmarried state can be superior for some people because it offers a person (if they are so gifted) more opportunity to serve God.
And yet:
"a woman may not read (that is, in the law), בצבור, "in the congregation", or church, because of the honour of the congregation;" (Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 12. sect. 17. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 23. 1.)
Especially after my posts with Marie, we would have to conclude that your Rabbis (well, at least the more Orthodox ones), are all self-condemned homosexuals and hypocrites. Like this guy:
"Women shouldn't study Gemara. It obscures the differences between the genders and leads to a decrease in god-fearing and mitzvah observance," former Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu stated.
In an article published in the Olam Katan pamphlet distributed in synagogue on Shabbat, the prominent Zionist-religious leader explained that women are allowed to study specific verses from the Gemara, which deal with "subjects related to them," but they "shouldn't study Gemara like men."
He even warns against blurring the physical differences between men and women, meanwhile you condemn Paul for doing the same when it comes to the length of hair:
"The obscuring of differences between men and women is forbidden in all respects – in the dress, the hairdo, the manner, and also in their studies," the rabbi explained, warning, "Whenever women violated this ruling… their god-fearing, mitzvot observance and respect for the Torah dropped, instead of rising."
Quoting the sages of blessed memory (Chazal), the rabbi stressed that women's role was to educate and delve into halachic rulings that apply to them."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3412203,00.html
At least we let our women study ALL that God offers, although we forbid them to usurp the authority of the men!
Let’s talk about the issue of Paul women to be silent in church.
What is the CONTEXT of the passage in 1 Corinthians 14?
The context of this passage, and much of 1 Corinthians, is the ORDER and STRUCTURE of the church.
The Corinthian church was noted for the chaos and lack of order that was rampant in that assembly (see verse 33). It is interesting that no elders or pastors are mentioned, and the prophets were not even exercising control (see verses. 29, 32, 37).
Everyone was participating with whatever expression they desired “whenever” they desired. This included tongues and prophesying by women who were taking the lead in the services instead of being submissive, as God’s Word makes clear (1 Timothy 2:11-15).
Apparently, certain women in the Corinthian church were out of order in disruptively asking questions publicly in the chaotic services. It is not coincidental that many modern churches that have tongues-speaking and claim gifts of healings and miracles also permit women to lead worship, preach, and teach.
Women may be gifted teachers, but they are not permitted by God “to speak” in such a manner in His churches. In fact, for them to do so is “shameful,” meaning “disgraceful” (v. 35).
The context of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 is talking about interpreting and understanding the gifts of tongues and prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:26-32).
Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:34 IS NOT commanding women to be absolutely SILENT in the church all the time.
It is only saying that women should not participate when tongues and/or prophecy is being interpreted and tested (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22; 1 John 4:1).
This is in agreement with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 which says that women should not teach or have authority over men. If women were involved in deciding whether a prophecy was truly from God, they would be disobeying what the Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
Therefore, Paul tells women to be silent when tongues and prophecy are being interpreted so that they will not be disobeying God’s Word.
So, at first glance, this seems to be a blanket command that women are not allowed to speak at all in the church.... BUT ONLY IF YOU IGNORE THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE CHAPTER AND WHAT THE ISSUE IS.
Please note, 1 Corinthians 11:5 mentions women praying and prophesying in the church and does not condemn it.
Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 must not be an absolute command for women to always be silent in church. It is a command for ORDER in worship.
RE: The guy had three names. Shaul to the Hebrews, Paul to the goyim and Pauline on Saturday night.
_________________________________________
That would be a good stunt for Bill Maher’s scriptwriters but does nothing for understanding the Bible.
I lived and worked in Taiwan for many years and as a result, I have BOTH an English name AND a Chinese name.
Likewise, Many Taiwanese or Chinese who come to the USA and assumed US citizenship adapt Western names.
CATHOLIC ANSWERS EXPLAINS IT THUSLY:
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-did-god-change-sauls-name-to-paul
Many mistakenly assume the Lord changed Saul’s name to Paul sometime after Saul converted from Judaism to Christianity, which happened during his encounter with Christ on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19). Unlike the instance of Jesus changing Simon’s name to Kepha (Gk. Petros) as a way of signifying the special role he would play in the Church (Mt 16:18, Jn 1:41-42), in Paul’s case there was no name change.
Saul of Tarsus was born a Jew, “circumcised on the eight day, of the race of Israel, or the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, in observance of the law a Pharisee” (Phil 3:5). The Hebrew name given him by his parents was Saul, but, because his father was a Roman citizen (and therefore Saul inherited Roman citizenship), Saul also had the Latin name Paul (Acts 16:37, 22:25-28), the custom of dual names being common in those days. Since he grew up in a strict Pharisee environment, the name Saul was by far the more appropriate name to go by. But after his conversion Saul determined to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, so he dusted off his Roman name and became known as Paul, a name Gentiles were accustomed to.
Adopting his Roman name was typical of Paul’s missionary style. His method was to put people at their ease and to approach them with his message in a language and style they could relate to. We should take a cue from Paul as we engage in apologetics work. No, we don’t need to adopt new names, but we should accommodate ourselves to our audiences (and we mean here audiences as small as one person). We want to speak to people in their own styles, so far as we can, and we want to address their particular concerns. We don’t want to raise people’s hackles before we even have a chance to raise issues.
Let’s talk about women’s head covering since you brought it up in your post above.
Please understand this.... The context of the entire passage of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is submission to the God-given order and “chain of command.”
A “covering” on a woman’s head is used as an illustration of the order, headship, and the authority of God. The key verse of this passage is 1 Corinthians 11:3 “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
The implications of this verse are found in the rest of the passage.
The order is: God the Father, God the Son, the man or husband, and the woman or wife. The veil or covering on the head of a believing Corinthian wife showed that she was under the authority of her husband, and therefore under submission to God.
Within this passage is also verse 10: “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”
Why is that important to angels? The relationship of God with men is something that angels watch and learn from (SEE 1 Peter 1:12). Therefore, a woman’s submission to God’s delegated authority over her is an example to angels. The holy angels, who are in perfect and total submission to God, expect that we, as followers of Christ, be the same.
This covering not only means a cloth but also can refer to a woman’s hair length. How can we say that? We must take this verse in the context or the setting in which it is presented. “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).
Therefore, in the context of this passage, a woman who is wearing her hair longer marks herself out distinctively as a woman and not a man.
The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the CORINTHIAN CULTURE, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship. The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God.
I’m sure you are going to ask : But why is hair an issue in this passage?
Understand again Paul is addressing an issue related to the CORINTHIAN CULTURE that was being allowed to disrupt the church.
For a woman to have a shaved head was a disgrace (and, in Jewish thinking, a sign of mourning, Deuteronomy 21:12). Her hair was her “glory” (1 Corinthians 11:15).
In the Corinthian culture, women normally wore a head covering as a symbol of their submission to their husbands.
Paul affirms the rightness of following that cultural mandate—to dispense with the head coverings on women would send the entirely wrong signal to the CULTURE AT LARGE.
Thus because of this, Paul says that, if a Christian woman refuses her head covering, she might as well shave her hair off, too (verse 6).
A woman who refused to wear a covering in that culture was basically saying, “I refuse to submit to God’s order.”
Therefore, Paul is teaching the Corinthians that hair length or the wearing of a “covering” by the woman was an outward indication of a heart attitude of submission to God and to His established authority.
IN SUMMARY:
God’s order is that the husband is the head of the wife as God is the head of Christ, but there is NO INEQUALITY or INFERIORITY implied.
God and Christ are equal and united, just as the husband and the wife are one. This is not a passage that teaches the woman is inferior to man or that she should be submissive to every man in every issue (even when the man is wrong).
It is teaching God’s order and spiritual headship in the marriage relationship. In the Corinthian culture, a woman who covered her head during worship or when she was in public displayed her submission to authority.
Whether you and I like it or not doesn’t change this.
Now, I can anticipate your next question -— WHAT ABOUT TODAY IN THE 21st CENTURY, ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TELL WOMEN TO COVER THEIR HEADS TOO?
In today’s culture, we no longer view a woman’s wearing of a head covering as a sign of submission. In most modern societies, scarves and hats are fashion accessories.
A woman has the choice to wear a head covering if she views it as a sign of her submission to the authority of her husband. BUT THAT IS HER CHOICE.
So, it is a PERSONAL CHOICE and not something that should be used to judge spirituality.
The real issue here is the HEART ATTIRUDE of obedience to God’s authority and submission to His established order “as to the LORD” (Ephesians 5:22).
God is far more concerned with an attitude of submission than an outward display of submission via a head covering.