Women will be saved through Childbearing, if

[Judges1318]

Was it clear that the prophet was speaking for God and not for himself? Regardless of the reason if it were a scripturally sound absolute that women should not be in positions of authority over men than God would not have appointed her in the first place, especially in such a high position as a judge over Israel. At the period in biblical history that was the highest position of authority that could be held by either a man or a woman. Apparently, it is not a scripturally sound absolute that a woman cannot be in a position of authority over a man. If so, then this remains true in this present time as well.

Remember, that the argument is God will allow a woman to fill in where men have failed (to their shame). That hardly means, "oh, then women really can be in pastoral authority over a man if she wants".

 

[Judges1318]

You refuse to understand even Paul's own words. "I do not...."
I Paul do not.

That's not God speaking. That's Paul managing the churches he founded through issuance of his epistles to them.

"...as the law says..." - 1 Corinthians 14:34

 

[Whispered]

I agree wholeheartedly. I myself have stated many times that you have to be careful to discern whether Paul is stating his opinion or reiterating what God has specifically revealed to him. There are quite a few instances where it is clear that Paul was speaking for himself as a man, living in that period of time, culture, and tradition and not strictly speaking for God. That does not mean that his opinion should be totally disregarded in all instances. That is what wisdom is for as to whether or not to apply his teaching to a specific situation. Paul saying "I do not..." is clearly his own opinion and not necessarily God' will and desire in each particular situation that it may possibly apply.

More often than not people tend to get things wrong when it comes to Paul's letters because they don't know there is a distinction between his own thoughts, and those communications he is forwarding on behalf of God.
However, it is I believe an intentional matter when someone ignores the first person pronoun of "I", as Paul used in his first epistle to Timothy and chapter 2, and why. And it would be easy for such a one as that to think Paul is contradicting himself in that regard of not permitting a woman to teach, or exercise authority over a man, when later in other epistles he praises women who are in those posts.
But that is not the case. Paul traveled great distances to bring the Gospel and start a church in those areas he ministered to. Cultural differences were a factor, among other things. And those were issues he addressed in his writings to those churches. Each one a different issue in a different place.

But we all know, there are many a false doctrine out there posturing as , "of God". And I do not believe it is a matter of coincidence but rather of character, that those false one's that define women and their role under God's light as inferior to men due to the sex of the woman, are defended by those who believe that themselves. Be they a man, or, amazingly as I have encountered such women, women themselves. Who will argue they are inferior in God's plan to the male in whatever role they serve, it must not be that which guides men.
Can you imagine? A man that believes that refusing to be baptized by a woman. A woman that believes that refusing to be baptized by a woman.
Bigotry is a sin we're suppose to repent of. Not a defensible characteristic of God and his church that we're suppose to defend and be proud of, in His name.

 

[tourist]

"...as the law says..." - 1 Corinthians 14:34

It has been stated many times in this forum that the law was nailed to the cross and that Christians are no longer under the law but are under grace.

 

[tourist]

See it?
If women ruling the people of God, and assuming the duties that men perform, is not a bad thing, why does the Prophet point it out as a bad thing? And why does it matter that honor go to a woman rather than to a man for the death of Sisera the enemy of Israel?

Probably because some guy said it was a bad thing.

 

[Whispered]

"...as the law says..." - 1 Corinthians 14:34

At this point I will say it would behoove anyone reading this debate to avail themselves of the opportunity and spend the time to read the following scholarly informed article that rebuts with Biblical and cultural proofs, the idea that women are to remain quiet in church, that "the law says", and that women are not to be in authority over a man.
Remember, imagining God orders bigotry to occupy his people and his church is contrary to living in the love an light of God's love for all people, and also revokes the oneness that we all are to rest in as those who are faithful in Christ. No divisions, no Jew, Greek, Gentile, no man , no woman. We are all one in Christ Jesus.
Arguing there is separation due to God given gender argues contrary to that and makes God show partiality. And that is contrary to His word. The Book of Acts chapter 10:34


The Article: (Excerpts posted. It is recommended the entire article be read. It is a wonderful and scholarly supported endeavor to clarify that which is an issue that has let to have women marginalized in the church for far too long.)

Did Paul Really Say, "Let the Women Keep Silent in the Churches"?

by Dennis J. Preato ​

"Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." (NASB, 1 Cor. 14:34-35)​

First Corinthians 14:34-35 presents the reader with three interpretive options.

First, are verses 34-35 a declarative statement written from the pen of the apostle Paul with the intention of forbidding women to speak in church? If so, what do these verses mean for the church today? Does Scripture prohibit women from speaking in the church forever or was this only a temporary and cultural prohibition?

Second, are these verses an interpolation, meaning a later addition or alteration to Scripture not written by the apostle Paul but by an uninspired writer? If so, then verses 34-35 should be rejected by all Bible readers because they were not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Third, are verses 34-35 a Corinthian slogan or rabbinic saying that Paul repeats for the purpose of rebuking? Paul rebukes the oral saying beginning with verse 36. If so, then verses 34-35 do not prohibit women from speaking in church. Whether one concludes these verses are a slogan or an interpolation of Scripture, the effect is the same. They do not prohibit women from speaking, teaching or preaching the word of God in church.​

This article provides objective evidence that verses 34-35 do not represent the inspired writings of the Apostle Paul or any other inspired writer. These verses are best understood as a slogan or rabbinic saying based on the Jewish "oral law," not the written word of God. Therefore, these verses cannot be used to prohibit women from pulpit ministry within the church. ....

[---]​

"...Historical Background and Literary Context


Corinth was a city of Greco-Roman culture whose inhabitants had a reputation for sexual immorality and depravity. The Corinthian church was characterized by divisions. First Corinthians was written to correct a number of problems and to answer a series of questions that were raised by the church members. Paul answers questions concerning marriage and divorce in chapter 7, food sacrificed to idols in chapter 8, two questions regarding worship in chapter 11, and the proper use of spiritual gifts in the church in chapters 12-14. Conduct in worship is addressed in chapter 14 where Paul describes and contrasts the proper use of prophecy and tongues. He concludes that things be done in an orderly manner (v. 40).


ARE VERSES 34-35 A DECLARATIVE STATEMENT?


Those scholars who believe that the apostle Paul is making a declarative statement exhibit a wide range of thought about the applicability and why Paul may have written these verses. Following are examples reflective of such diversity of opinion of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.


Women must never speak, prophesy or speak in tongues in church. One 19th century Bible commentator holds this extreme and minority view that denies the right of women to speak, prophesy or speak in tongues by saying: "This rule is positive, explicit, and universal ... women were to keep silence ... take no part in speaking foreign languages and of prophecy." This commentator's dogmatic statements are totally unjustified and without merit. He disregards Scripture's declaration that women will prophesy (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17-18) and have already done so in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 11:5). He believed the phrase, "as saith the Law" in 1 Cor. 14:34 was linked to Gen. 3.16 but offered no scriptural evidence in support of his opinion.[2]...

 

[Judges1318]

It has been stated many times in this forum that the law was nailed to the cross and that Christians are no longer under the law but are under grace.

Hmm...Paul is the very one through whom we know about how the law was nailed to the cross (and what that actually means), yet, he he is the one who said "...as the law says..." in 1 Corinthians 14:34 regarding women not being in pastoral authority in the church.

Can you explain the contradictory nature of your argument?

 

[Dino246]

Until you provide some kind of evidence of circular reasoning, my argument stands that a woman being in charge of Israel, and a military commander to wimpy to go into battle unless a woman goes with him signify the misplaced order of men and women among God's people. And it is shameful.

You just repeated the circular reasoning. You assume, with no evidence whatsoever, that it is somehow wrong for Deborah to be judging Israel. You read that Barak refused to lead the army without Deborah accompanying him, and you conclude that women should not be in leadership. That is classic circular reasoning. That you call Deborah's leadership "shameful" (per 1 Corinthians 14) is evidence of anachronism as well.

Here's the truth: you have no argument with regard to Deborah's leadership. All you have is assumptions.

Later, even the prophet Isaiah shames the nation for being ruled by women. If there was nothing wrong with that, the prophet would not have included that in his condemnation of God's people.

Judah was not ruled by women at the time Isaiah spoke those words, meaning there is another explanation, and using an inadequately understood comment as evidence for your position is foolish at best.

 

[Whispered]

Continued from post #206

[---]​

"...Summary Discussion of Scholars' Comments


The vast majority of scholars who claim that Paul is making a declarative statement limit this prohibition regarding speaking to only those instances where such speech causes a disturbance in the church. Women, they say, did speak, pray in tongues, and prophesy in the early church. The apparent prohibition based on women being uneducated was a cultural reality in the first century. This condition no longer exists. The issue of self-control and not causing a disturbance in church applies equally to men and women and appears more related to the excesses of speaking in tongues and prophecy than in anything else in chapter 14. Basically all commentators agree with Paul's emphasis that all things be done properly and in an orderly manner (v. 40) in the church. Most also assume that the "law" somehow refers to a specific Genesis passage. But does it? " ...

[---]
​

"...
WHY THE LAW DOES NOT REFER TO SCRIPTURE


The testimony of the Old Testament. The phrase, "just as the law also says" is not supported by the Old Testament. It is the major weakness of the view that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 represents Paul's declarative statement that women are not permitted to speak. None of these commentators have adequately discussed or resolved how the words, Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak are supported by the Old Testament verses they cite. The Genesis citations quoted by these scholars (Gen. 1:26, 2:21, 3:16) have nothing to do with denying women the right to speak in church. The reason given in verse 34 that women are not permitted to speak relates directly to the phrase, "just as the law also says." Only the phrase: "but let them subject themselves" is a possible allusion to Gen. 3:16. But the subject phrase, "just as the law also says," contradicts Paul's known teachings that we have been liberated from the law (Rom. 3:28; 6:14, 7:16, 8:2; Gal 3:11, 13, 4:5, 5:18, etc.).

[bold is my addition to this excerpt]
We have been liberated from the law. Since Paul claims that we have been liberated from the law, how could he appeal to it? Paul also fought against the religious zealots of his day who tried to impose the requirements of the Old Testament's written and oral laws on New Testament believers in Christ. These verses cannot represent the apostle Paul's inspired words. Why? The reason is there is nothing written in the canon of Scripture from which Paul could have quoted to support such a declaration. Such an appeal would also contradict Paul's previously stated position in 1 Corinthians that women can pray and prophesy in church.


Paul does not refer to written Scripture in this manner. In the entire epistle of 1 Corinthians, whenever Paul quotes from and specially uses the term "law" (meaning written Scripture) he does so with specific intent, focus, and stylistic writing. For example, in 1 Cor. 9:8-9 Paul writes, Does not the law also say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses: "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." After referring to the law as saying something, Paul tells us that it is written and immediately quotes Deut 25:4 verbatim. Also in 1 Cor. 14:21 after Paul writes, "In the Law it is written," he immediately quotes from Isaiah 28:11-12. Again, in 1 Cor. 4:6 where Paul generally refers to Scripture, he tells the Corinthians to learn through us the meaning of the saying "Do not go beyond what is written." In every case when Paul specially refers to Scripture, he says it is written (1 Cor. 1:19, 1:31, 2:9, 3:19, 10:7, 15:45) and consistently quotes from the Old Testament to prove his point.


However, in 1 Corinthians 14:34 the passage simply states just as the Law also says without reference to it being written. Why would Paul suddenly change his consistent writing style in this verse only? Why doesn't Paul even say it is written or even quote from the Old Testament as he has previously done in every instance throughout this epistle? Why? The reason is more likely these are not Paul's words. Either Paul was quoting a non-biblical source, such as a slogan or rabbinic saying or verses 34-35 represent an interpolation, an alteration of Scripture. In either interpretive option, these words did not originate with Paul. "




CONCLUSION
Verses 34-35 do not prohibit women from speaking in the church in either pulpit ministry, teaching, preaching, praying, prophesying, or any other speaking function. These verses represent a quotation, which is the most plausible and correct interpretation. Paul is quoting a saying from the Oral Law of the Jews which is not intended to be understood as the writer's original declaration. The evidence is compelling, diverse, and objective. This view also allows for the natural flow of thought to remain uninterrupted with verses "34-35" noted as a quotation and a rebuke beginning in verse 36. Paul also has no need to specifically address women as the only cause of "interrupting the service" as some scholars suggest. Paul's conclusion in verse 40 is more than adequate to tell the Corinthians that both men and women must be careful to minister in the gifts of the Spirit in an orderly fashion.

The focus of Chapter 14 is on the proper use of spiritual gifts, tongues and prophecy. Paul's closing exhortation, beginning in verse 39, is a fitting conclusion: Therefore, my brothers and sisters, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner.

 

[Judges1318]

Probably because some guy said it was a bad thing.

Well, one thing I've learned. There's no point in discussing the Bible with the person who just makes everything in the Bible he disagrees with man-made doctrine.

 

[Judges1318]

Judah was not ruled by women at the time Isaiah spoke those words, meaning there is another explanation, and using an inadequately understood comment as evidence for your position is foolish at best.

Dude, we talked about this.
Where were you?

 

[Judges1318]

Here's the truth: you have no argument with regard to Deborah's leadership. All you have is assumptions.

I have the plain words of scripture. That is my argument. You are among those who argue that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. You are the one who has no argument.

 

[Dino246]

I have the plain words of scripture. That is my argument. You are among those who argue that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. You are the one who has no argument.

Responding to a logical argument with three fallacies? Wow. That speaks volumes of the merit of your position.

 

[Dino246]

Dude, we talked about this.
Where were you?

I see where you completely dismissed the context that I presented. I don't see where you dealt with it properly.

 

[Judges1318]

I see where you completely dismissed the context that I presented. I don't see where you dealt with it properly.

Since I'm not allowed to use the Bible to defend what I say I guess I will never deal with it properly for you.

 

[Whispered]

Hmm...Paul is the very one through whom we know about how the law was nailed to the cross (and what that actually means), yet, he he is the one who said "...as the law says..." in 1 Corinthians 14:34 regarding women not being in pastoral authority in the church.

Can you explain the contradictory nature of your argument?

Posts #206 and 209 will answer your question.

 

[Whispered]

Since I'm not allowed to use the Bible to defend what I say I guess I will never deal with it properly for you.

Odd, since you've implied use of scripture supports your arguments thus far.
Misrepresenting the Bible isn't a proper means of defense of the scripture.

 

[Whispered]

Since Deborah has been introduced into this discussion I thought this may assist those who may have never heard of her. There is an age old song of Deborah also. Link
Deborah
by Jennifer L. Koosed

Deborah, the only female judge in the Hebrew Bible, defeated the Canaanites with the help of her general Barak and Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite.

[---]

Did you know…?

• Deborah’s name means “bee.”
• Deborah is one of five women called a prophet in the Hebrew Bible. The others are Miriam (Exod 15:20), Huldah (2Kgs 22:14), Isaiah’s wife (Isa 8:3) and Noadiah (Neh 6:14).
• Women may have had an official liturgical role as song writers in ancient Israel.
• The two oldest passages in the Bible are both victory songs attributed to women: Miriam (Exod 15:20-21) and Deborah (Judg 5).
• The place of Deborah’s battle is the pass of Megiddo, which is also the place of the final battle between good and evil according to the book of Revelation (Megiddo = Armageddon).

Full article

 

[posthuman]

The testimony of the Old Testament. The phrase, "just as the law also says" is not supported by the Old Testament.

have a look at Numbers ch. 30

 

[posthuman]

"...as the law says..." - 1 Corinthians 14:34

It has been stated many times in this forum that the law was nailed to the cross and that Christians are no longer under the law but are under grace.

the context here is that Paul is giving instruction and saying that the precepts behind how he is telling them they ought to conduct themselves - so that they are not disgraced - are those precepts that are in the law.

why is Paul saying look, what i'm telling you is what the law says? he's not basing it on 'merely his own opinion' but what scripture teaches. not because 'we are under the law' - we're not, thank God! - but because what the law teaches is good, and true.