1 Corinthians 11:1-16 - Men and Women In the Church 

The spirit of the world has brought the church to a dangerous precipice. You can tell by the majority of the comments to this video

@@Kathleen253 True... people are shaping the gospel to fit their lives and not the other way around.

Opinion please read Dr Ammon Hillman

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

@@shereewright348 opinions please read Dr Ammon Hillman

Opinion please read Dr Ammon Hillman​@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

​@@FA-God-s-Words-Matteropinion please read Dr Ammon Hillman

Please read Dr Ammon Hillman opinion please

Interesting!

​@@DavidGuzikEnduringWordplease read Dr Ammon Hillman opinion please

It is a Greek idiom that doesn't translate well into English 😊 κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων (kata kephalēs echōn) meant: to cover one's head. It sounds ridiculous in English when literally translated 😅😆 in English it translates literally to something as: of having down head, down having head, down head having, having down of head, and so on 😅 that doesn't translate well, if at all 😅 But then again, stuff like, "cat's outta the bag," or "get your ducks in a row," probably sounds just as nutty to someone who isn't familiar with English sayings. 😂

*> then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5* The fact a verse is supposedly most cited in the passage is irrelevant. This supposed fact is contrary to reality anyway. Many early church fathers and biblical scholars (and indeed, more recent figures as well) rightly cite and analyze the entire passage which they are discussing. See Iranaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine of Hippo, who all covered the whole passage in their analyses. *> it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear* The word κατακαλύπτω is a verb which means "to cover" or "veil one's self". It does not seem to refer to hair anywhere in the septuagint or extrabiblical historical writings. In fact, there are translations in the septuagint which use κατακαλύπτω for the act of covering one's head with a veil (See Genesis 24:64 and surrounding context). *> ...but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar ...To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures* That's why the method of covering (wrap, kerchief, bonnet, cap, pulling over of a shawl, whatever) is a matter of choice. *> For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.* Okay. Paul clearly states "while praying or prophesying". A woman covering or uncovering (or a man covering or uncovering) at any other time is completely up to their discretion. *> then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4... Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should.* We do. Many Christian men in a variety of denominations are told/learn to take their hats off while praying. *> Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions?* No, praying and prophesying are acts that glorify God. I see no reason why you must sever the connection between prayer/prophecy and glory. *> Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples?* No, but I'll make a few extrapolated arguments in favor of why coverings could be beneficial outside of prayer of prophecy: 1. In Matthew 28, Jesus calls every follower to spread the Gospel and make disciples of every nation (the great commission), and in Matthew 5:14-15, he calls us to be a light (witness) to the world. In 1 Peter 3, wives are called to dress modestly, even to an unbelieving husband so that they "may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives". Head covering is clearly an act of modesty (remember that by covering her hair, a woman covers her glory), and so by wearing one, she acts as a witness to unbelievers. 2. The headship relationship described in 1 Corinthians 11:3, combined with the roles of a husband and wife found in Ephesians 5, paint a picture of the Gospel itself. By wearing an outward symbol of agreement of headship, you are proclaiming Christ's relationship to the church. *> If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying?* Because Paul has spent the past 12 verses making 5 arguments in favor of head covering and doesn't need to rehash everything he has said in very verse. (otherwise, Paul would end up with an argument that reads like your RU-vid comment :P ) At the end of the day, head covering (or not) is not a primary issue of Christianity. It is non-salvific, and secondary at best. However, I personally believe it is an important aspect of Christian ethics that we have lost as a result of feminism and its diminishing of God-ordained gender roles (and therefore diminishing the Gospel). We should reclaim this symbol. God bless you, brother. (edit: bolded text from your comment for clarity)

​@@tehZevo_ Not sure why you thought it necessary to mention that I stated that 1st Corinth. 11:5 may ARGUABLY be the most cited in the passage as irrelevant, since it was meant as an introduction. Unless it was meant to be spiteful. But what I found to be ironic is that your response was even MORE irrelevant because INSTEAD of using the Bible you start referring to “early church fathers.” No scripture verse, nothing. I am not going to argue about what some men YOU DEEM to be church fathers have said. Most of which I can see were of the Catholic persuasion full of false doctrines. Many churches and alleged church fathers have been wrong about so many things that I cannot believe that you would rather focus on that than the PURE Word of God. But maybe it is because you cannot without help from something or someone OUTSIDE the scriptures. > If you ADMIT that the word κατακαλύπτω is a verb which means "to cover" or "veil one's self" then WHY are you arguing that it is a NOUN since you believe it to be a physical cloth covering? If to veil one’s self is simply meaning to cover one’s self and not an actual veil but like you said a verb then why can’t one cover themselves in long hair. There is nothing to PREVENT one from understanding this logic and possibility, unless one is biased. Again you delve into outside sources to mount your defense by referring to “Septuagint” and as YOU said “extrabiblical historical writings.” Its like you can’t provide substantial biblical proof. Though you briefly site a passage Genesis 24:64 without so much as an explanation as though it explains itself. Well I have done substantial research on this subject and know why you and a few others like this passage. Some like to use the story when Rebecca covered her head when she approached Isaac’s home, as some sort of proof that women ought to wear veils believing for certain that she was doing this due to some kind of rule or command. There are several flaws to this theory. The first and most obvious is why would she WAIT until she got to Isaac’s home to put on the veil. Wasn’t she in the company of men escorting her? The second is that there was no doctrine or tradition that we can read that prompted her to do it. Quoting this moment in time would seem more like an attempt to exploit and conjure up a reason to facilitate one’s beliefs. Some have claimed that she did this because married women had to wear veils to show their marital status. There are two problems with this, the first is that Rebecca was not married yet, and second, that this belief cannot be substantiated with any scripture. So why would she do it? Well, the natural thought would be that she wanted to “dress up” for her future husband. But that of course is a logical guess but to assume a rule with no evidence I think is disingenuous. >Your explanation that the method of covering (wrap, kerchief, bonnet, cap, pulling over of a shawl, whatever) is a matter of choice is not based on any thing biblical. Again no verse whatsoever. There is no reason to assume (biblically) that one can CHOOSE the method of the alleged covering. There is nothing that mentions that there is a foreign object involved at all instead we read the words long hair, shorn and shaven twice, clearly referring to hair. > Though Paul does state "while praying or prophesying” the rest of the verses clearly show that he was not being conditional as already mentioned. If the reason a man ought to not cover his head (in long hair} and the woman to cover her head in long hair is because of the order of creation then this idea is from the beginning and not something that is regulated under church services or under two conditions. Paul was just giving us examples. There is nothing to draw the idea of one being able to supposedly cover up or not cover up under other conditions and leave it up to their discretion. Again no scripture, nothing. >Though I can believe that there may be some denominations that may possibly ask some men to take off their hats while praying but that is not exactly the norm according to my experience. I have been to many churches where no one asks anyone to take off their hats. My point in my essay was that is not “normally” heard within churches that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions. I am glad that you quoted me correctly when I used the word “normally.” The fact of the matter is that this subject is more focused on women wearing a hat or veil than men not wearing one. And again as expected no verse, no scripture, just a simple sentence that some man-made denominations might tell their men to take off their hats, which is hardly substantial evidence. > If verse 7 states that a man not be covered because he is the image and glory of God then not only should he be not covered in long hair while praying and prophesying but under any condition that you may regard as an “act that glorif(ies) God.” Like talking in tongues or casting out demons etc. There is no reason to believe that a “breaking of any connection between prayer/prophecy and glory” would be happening > Though you negated that this should make you question whether perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples, but yet felt COMPELLED to “extrapolate arguments in favor of why coverings could be beneficial outside of prayer of prophecy” I find this interesting as most head covering promoters tend to find ways to go beyond their own beliefs about there being ONLY two conditions. So now suddenly there more reasons/conditions. 1. You use Matthew 28, but the great commission doesn’t infer the wearing of veils this is about witnessing to others using the gospel not a foreign object. Matthew 5:14-15, says Jesus calls us to be a light (witness) to the world, meaning that we offer VERBAL TESTIMONY like a witness of Jesus’ gospel of salvation by grace through faith. How are you using this to promote a hat or veil? Though 1st Peter 3, mentions that women are called to dress modestly, even to an unbelieving husband so that they "may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives". Head covering is NOT mentioned here. You are trying to include that here when it just says to dress modestly. Your logic that by wearing a hat or veil that a woman acts as a witness to unbelievers is completely unfounded. This is your amalgamation of ideas that you have stringed together to make it seem true. A woman does not need to wear something special in order to testify to others and there is no direct verse to prove that. She just needs the Word of God. 2. Then you mention the headship relationship described in 1 Corinthians 11:3, combined with the roles of a husband and wife found in Ephesians 5, paint a picture of the Gospel itself. But you are mistaken to mix the marital establishment in Ephesians 5 with 1 Corinthians 11:3, when the passage in 1st Corinthians refers to ALL men and women not married couples. This is mainly due to bias and misunderstanding of the word “woman” to mean wife and “man” to falsely mean husband. The words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found but veil promoters will claim that that is what they are referring to. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures. But the way it is structured gives the strong understanding that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women NOT just married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women. “EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But EVERY woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if you were to exchange the words above for husband and wife, because then it would seem like all the single men CAN wear a covering or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” On this topic someone once mentioned about “submission” for example “The clearest explanation, Paul’s is referring to a natural cover and a material covering to symbolize her submission to her husband.” Even though there is no mention of the word submission in this topic yet because of the misinterpretation of the word “man” or “woman” they have construed the idea that this passage refers to husbands and wives. But like I mentioned before would not make sense, not to mention the idea of submission which they somehow wrongfully included in this passage. There is no basis to believe that a woman should “wear” an “outward symbol of agreement of headship” as there is no verse to point to that idea. One proclaims Christ's relationship to the church through one’s testimony not by some foreign object, that would be ludicrous.

> Your response of why Paul would leave out the word prophesying in verse 13 is similar to what I already mentioned sarcastically that maybe he got tired therefore he didn’t need to like you said “rehash everything he has said in very verse” Though one can argue that but I found it suspect especially since he had no problem mentioning both words in verses 4 and 5. Though I can thankfully agree that the belief in head covering (or not) is not a primary issue of Christianity and that it isn’t a salvation issue. But I have to respectfully disagree that it is somehow “an important aspect of Christian ethics that we have lost as a result of feminism” when nothing was ever “lost,” it just isn’t what Paul was talking about. And to constantly refer back to feminism is simply your incentive to fortify your beliefs that something was lost or taken away. Regardless of the evils that they may have done it doesn’t change scripture. People were wrong about the this doctrine WAY before feminism came along just like infant baptism, popery, purgatory, works for salvation, Mary worship, baptism for salvation and so much more. God bless and may God illuminate you.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter *> on “early church fathers.”* The reason I mention them is that they too were scholars and analyzers of the surrounding culture and biblical history. Far be it from me to suggest that "we've always done it that way" is alone a good reason to do something, especially if it potentially disagrees with scripture. We are in the year 2024. When you go back to people who lived in the triple-digit AD years, you will find fathers, grandfathers, etc. that have a personal experience with the culture at the time. I am using this as evidence for why such people would understand the covering to not be hair. *> on κατακαλύπτω* Ah, now we are making ground! From your perspective would you agree that a woman with short hair and a veil is "covered"? *> on Rebekah* Actually, no, I was citing Genesis 24 because it gives biblical evidence that "covering" was understood to involve a cloth of some sort (and specifically, not hair): Gen 24:65 - "'He is my master,' the servant answered. So she took her veil and covered herself." *> There is no reason to assume (biblically) that one can CHOOSE the method of the alleged covering.* I think you might be a bit heated/antagonistic toward me for some reason. Surely we can agree that if an act is prescribed in the Bible, but it remains entirely silent or unclear on details of the act, that those details are generally left up to our personal conscience. I was simply arguing that (assuming head covering is biblical) because the Bible is unclear on what the covering would be, that any non-hair covering would suffice. *> Though Paul does state "while praying or prophesying”...* Just because Paul argues a non-sequitur does not make his point invalid, assuming we hold that the Bible is infallible. We do not need to know why Paul uses the argument, only that he is using the argument. If Paul argues that created order is a reason for women to cover their heads and men to not, only when praying or prophesying, I don't need to spend the time thinking about how he got from A to B. His words here are God's words. I don't need to somehow validate the argument by saying "he's just giving examples" -- this would be doing something you have continuously accused me of (yet, I disagree): speaking outside the scriptures. Does Paul state he is only giving examples? No. So do not assume Paul is only giving examples, and assume he meant what he said. :) *> I find this interesting as most head covering promoters tend to find ways to go beyond their own beliefs* Thank you! I humbly appreciate your acknowledgement that I'm not (or at least, not entirely) trying to overstep the boundary of scripture. We can easily "Pharisee" our way into countless minutia of what constitutes a sin, and create (unnecessary) laws where the Bible is silent.. "Is a doily too small?", "What kind of fabric or style should the covering be?", "Should women wear a covering in a Church service?", etc. But I remain silent on those issues as the scriptures are silent. :) *> on denominations and men wearing hats while praying* That's fair, I don't want to discount your experience either. I'm personally coming from a perspective of some (biblically) conservative non-denominational churches, who will be, at the minimum, discontent with their sons keeping their hats on, and they themselves, take their hats off during prayer. Once again, personally, I am highly confused at such people who take that aspect of 1 Cor. 11 seriously, but discount the woman's covering. *> when the passage in 1st Corinthians refers to ALL men and women* I think it actually refers to both ALL men and women and married couples. I believe many translations (ESV, unfortunately, as much as I enjoy it) have trouble with this. For instance, in the latter half of 1 Cor 11:3, I believe man/woman (andros/gyne and their derivatives) are best translated as husband and wife, as Paul is clearly stating the same idea as what is found in Eph. 5:23. But in 1 Cor 11:5-9, for example, I believe man/woman are better translated... man/woman. Man (in general) is the glory of God, and woman (in general, who was created from man) is the glory of man, etc. *> on Matt 5 and 28 (great commission / light of the world)* I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Christian who doesn't believe that the way we act, dress, care for, and other non-verbal actions, can affect how effective our witness for Christ is. Also, aside from Matt 28:20 ("teaching them to observe..."), Neither the great commission nor the sermon on the mount state verbal witness. In fact, Matt 5:16 seems to contradict your stance: "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your *good works and give glory to your Father* who is in heaven." As you stated earlier: please be careful to put words where the Bible is silent. Is verbal witness explicitly mentioned elsewhere? Of course. It's all over the Bible. But don't discount the power of non-verbal witness. *> "You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if you were to exchange the words above for husband and wife"* Yeah. Greek can be annoying like that, unfortunately. We're left with additional puzzles like this to figure out if Paul meant "husband" or "man" lol, as I mentioned earlier. :( *> "Even though there is no mention of the word submission"* Well, no, not in 1 Corinthians 11. But Paul is saying basically word-for-word what can be found in his other letter in Ephesians, where he does include submission. From Ephesians 5, we can see that submission is related to headship: Christ is the head of the church, and the church submits to Christ. So also is a Man the head of his wife, and his wife should submit to him. (Ephesians 5:22-24). It would be very reasonable to consider a veil during prayer (and a lack of a covering for men) as symbols of acceptance of these different roles, especially when Paul argues from glory and creation as well. *> on feminism* Here's an interesting question for you: if long hair is indeed the only necessary covering for women, and if a group of women intentionally throw off their physical, cloth coverings they had been wearing in an explicitly-stated rebellion against God-ordained gender roles (e.g. something like "Men and women were created with equal roles, there is no difference in what men and women can do in the church, therefore, head coverings are a symbol of oppression and they suck!") would their action of throwing off the covering be a sin? I think I touched on most of your points. God bless!

@@tehZevo_I’ll admit I didn’t read everything you two wrote, but I did catch your reference to men being told to take their hats off while praying and the other person saying not so… I’m wondering if that’s a regional tradition then. Where I’m from, men certainly took their hats off to pray. They didn’t wear hats in church, at the table and some, even in the house. People have certainly gotten away from that for sure, but my husband and sons take their hats off to pray. They don’t wear hats in church, they do wear hats inside the house, but not at the table. But I remember growing up, my daddy and my brother even took their hats off to enter a home. But most men I know still take their hats off to pray.

Pastor Lance replies - Good question. That answer is going to be different for different people, isn't it?

Cultural relevance is what is leaving the church in a bad state... We should be shaping our culture around the scripture.

​​@@scottbee6638i agree here. i don't think relevancy in culture is something that should dictate any Christian practise. Much of what we do and believe as followes of Christ is counter-cultural, if not all of it. We're set apart and look strange to the world for reason: we're not perishing! We're alive in Christ! 😃❤️🙌🙏 An extreme example is pro-life and anti-lgtbq isn't culturally relevant anymore, but we hold fast to our beliefs as followers of Jesus and not of culture. i believe every single Word of the Lord is relevant regardless if culture recognises it. Jesus is the same today, yesterday, and forever! 😃🙌💖✨️✨️✨️💖💖

Here is a summary and explanation/exegesis of what the Bible states regarding these contentious matters: Men and Women in the Church - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_LIaFoT5xaM.html A Word to Women Pastors - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wDQadW0yPow.html - Enduring Word Team

@@DavidGuzikEnduringWord i am not sending you away to watch some videos. you should comment to my reply yourself. i provided Bible verses and you have to address them. if you dont agree you need to say WHy you dont agree, what your opinion is and then support it with the Bible verses. dont run away this is not a difficult subject and the Bible is very clear that women can teach and preach men and submission goes both ways. 1 tim 2 and 1 cor 14;35 in 1 tim paul talks about ONE woman who was not allowed to teach ONE man because she usurped authority over the man. no believer has the right to usurp the authority over the other. nor man nor a woman. paul used singular form in that passage and spoke about one specific woman. not to women in general. especially that just a few verses earlier paul was addressing the issue of modesty and spoke about women in general, in PLURAL form. God does know the difference between plural and singular. in 1 cor 14;35 where it says that women are not allowed to speak in church paul meant that women were not supposed to CHAT (disturb by talking, chatting) in the church. a few verses earlier in that same chapter paul was saying in verse 26 paul says "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." - that means that each, whether a man or a woman is supposed to share a teaching, a revelation, or any other thing they receive from God in order to edify the church. col 3;16 "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." - again, the same paul says here that we all are to TEACH and ADMONISH one another when we gather together. also in 1 cor 11 paul (3 chapters earlier) paul talks about women praying and prophesying in church - so he could not mean in 1 cor 14;35 that women cannot speak. most teaching on the subject of family and women's role are based on man's traditions and ignorance and pride, not on the Word of God. which is very sad. additionally, pastor is not a position of authority not a title. it is a role and a function. being a pastor means you take care of the sheep, of other believers, help them in whatever they need you to do. you dont even have to teach others. you are a care giver. also, in 1 tim 2;5 we read that there is only One Mediator between God and men. when you accept another person, another human being as your head, authority or a priest/pastor then you make that person an antichrist because they stand in the PLACE of Christ. the Lord Yeshu Hamashiyah said in mat 23;10 "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." there is only ONE AUTHORITY over us and that is only Lord Yeshu Hamashiyah. the Bible says that husband and wife are one flesh so they are one head and they are both submitted to the only Headship of the Lord Yeshu Hamashiyah and they are to be submitted one to another (eph 5;21). when you look at people through their gender you look at them through their flesh... that is being carnally minded.

Paul is pretty clear that there is a difference in 1 Corinthians chapter 14 and 1 Timothy chapter 2. Carnal and fleshly minded would be more of viewing them in sexual ways, not acknowledging their gender and roles. It would also be considered carnal and fleshly minded to conform to the world’s view and deny what scripture says.

​@@DavidGuzikEnduringWordopinion please read Dr Ammon Hillman

​@@janeecejjf2001opinion please read Dr Ammon Hillman