‘Variance’ for North American, Trans-European Division Fails

[John317]

1 Cor. 14:33-40

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, [34] the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. [35] If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

...are refering to local incidences that we are only getting 1/2 of the conversation.

If Paul speaks only with reference to local incidences, why does he write that what he is telling the Corinthians applies to "all the churches of the saints"?

Also, if it were a local problem, why does Paul refer to events at creation and to "the law" as the explanation for his instructions?

If the SDA church is ever going to make changes in this issue, the people need to hear a convincing answer from the Bible to these questions.

So far, I don't believe any convicing answers have been given which explain why Paul said what he did if he was indeed only speaking of a local problem.

[Neil D]

But Jesus himself showed that women don't have the same work to do in the church. He showed this by calling only men as His original 12 and 70 disciples.

Since I have names of the 12, I will give you that arguement...but the 70...I question that...How do you know that the 70 were strictly men?

Luke 10:1-3

1 Now after this (A)the Lord appointed [a]seventy (B)others, and sent them ©in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come. 2 And He was saying to them, “(D)The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. 3 Go; (E)behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.

Luke 10;17

17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even (W)the demons are subject to us in Your name.”

Can you find anything that indicates from the bible that indicates that the 70 was just men?

Mark 15:40-42

40 There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome. 41 When He was in Galilee, they used to follow Him and minister to Him; and there were many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

There is nothing to indicate it,but I wouldn't be surprised that there were females among the 70.

[Neil D]

If Paul speaks only with reference to local incidences, why does he write that what he is telling the Corinthians applies to "all the churches of the saints"?

Ok, let's assume you are correct for the moment...In the immediate preceding verses Paul writes-

26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.

If he was to emphise that MEN were the teachers, why does this passage say "when you assembel, EACH ONE has a psalm,... a teaching ...a revelation..."...there is no distinction of gender roles here, John. In the very next paragraph, he then talks about women being silent.

Historically, the Oracle of Delphi made some deep impressions on the local populace, but so did the teachings of Christ...They also prophesied...The corinthians practiced an open service, and allowed some unconverted women make some utterances/prophecy of Jesus being accursed. So when Paul writes, "Let your women keep silent" he uses a word with two meanings! He may well be referring to "wives" who are unconverted and untaught-- the very one that "prophesied" that "Jesus was accursed" as recorded in 1 Cor 12:3. The church at Corinth would know exactly which wife or wives he meant! For us today, we must rely on context clues to reveal whether Paul was talking of women in general or specific wives.

[John317]

Since I have names of the 12, I will give you that arguement...but the 70...I question that...How do you know that the 70 were strictly men?

Luke 10:1-3

1 Now after this (A)the Lord appointed [a]seventy (B)others, and sent them ©in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come. ...

Can you find anything that indicates from the bible that indicates that the 70 was just men?

TEV says, "seventy-two men." (Luke 10: 1, 17) Why?

Because it says "72 others." The "others" were in addition to the 12, who were all men.

It is probably an allusion to the 70 elders of Israel in Numbers 11: 24, 25, upon whom the Spirit rested so that they prophesied:

Quote:

ESV-- So Moses went out and told the people the words of the Lord. And he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tent. [25] Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it.

Notice that there were 12 patriarchs, and Jesus chose 12 male disciples. Similarly, there were 70 elders of Israel, and Jesus chose 70 (or 72) disciples to preach.

The Sanhedrin was also made up of 70 men.

So the number 70 as related to leadership within Israel was very signifcant among the Jews.

It's safe to assume that if Christ had chosen women to be among the 70 (or 72), there would have been some mention of it, since it would have been so unusual.

The burden of proof is on those who believe that women were chosen by Christ to be among the 70. There's no suggestion in the context or in the language to believe He did.

[doug yowell]

If he was to emphise that MEN were the teachers, why does this passage say "when you assembel, EACH ONE has a psalm,... a teaching ...a revelation..."...there is no distinction of gender roles here, John. In the very next paragraph, he then talks about women being silent.

.

There is no distinctive gender inclusion either. There need be no distinction in gender role with these gifts. Obviously the "teaching over" in the later mention is not the same as "a teaching" or a psalm, or a revelation. Your use of the Oracle's influence seems to indicate that only the unconverted women acted as prophets and only they were disruptive.And exactly what were they supposed to be submissive to, the continuity of the group? How do we know that these women were married to believers? If those women acted like that on a consistent basis do you really think the group would have needed Paul to disallow it from a couple hundred miles away? If it was allowed like that would the meetings have continued to function? Don't forget the broader context of the letter written because it was the Corinthian believers who were themselves acting in the Spirit out of the Spirit.

[doug yowell]

...The corinthians practiced an open service, and allowed some unconverted women make some utterances/prophecy of Jesus being accursed.

What??? Do we have Biblical confirmation of this "openness"? How bout a video confirmation? This type of statement simply defies common sense. What group of professing Christians would allow such a thing? Particularly after Paul already notes the effect of true prophesy on the unconverted visitor in the immediate preceeding verses? Notice in those verses how the "all" is applied by Paul to the believers in vs.23,24? It is the same "each" "you" "anyone"that he speaks of in the rest of the entire book. If the Church at Corinth were indeed allowing anyone and everyone (an open service)to prophesy at will I think Paul might have had a more pressing problem to address.

[John317]

AMEN!!!

[John317]

In the immediate preceding verses Paul writes-

26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.

If he was to emphise that MEN were the teachers, why does this passage say "when you assembel, EACH ONE has a psalm,... a teaching ...a revelation..."...there is no distinction of gender roles here, John. In the very next paragraph, he then talks about women being silent.

Let look carefully at 1 Cor. 14: 26-34:

Quote:

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. [27] If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. [28] But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. [29] Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. [30] If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. [31] For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, [32] and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. [33] For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, [34] let your women [Or: let the women] keep silent in the churches, because they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.

Notice these points:

1) Paul's instructions are addressed to "brothers," i.e., the male members of the church.

Paul does not say, "What therefore is it, brothers AND SISTERS?"

2) All of the nouns referring to people in verses 26 to 33 are in the masculine gender.

3) In verses 33, 34, Paul makes it clear that the men are in charge of who speaks and who does not.

Paul does not say, "Now you women, I don't want you to speak." No. Paul instructs the men not to allow women "in the churches of the saints" to speak, because the women are to be silent and "submissive, as the law also says."

I'd like to hear your opinion of why Paul is saying this to the men of the church. Why are the men to determine who speaks and who doesn't speak in the church?

{Post# 30,000}

[John317]

... when Paul writes, "Let your women keep silent" he uses a word with two meanings! He may well be referring to "wives" who are unconverted and untaught-- the very one that "prophesied" that "Jesus was accursed" as recorded in 1 Cor 12:3. The church at Corinth would know exactly which wife or wives he meant! For us today, we must rely on context clues to reveal whether Paul was talking of women in general or specific wives.

Actually, verse 34 simply says that "the women" are to be silent and "submissive as the law also says." It wouldn't make sense for him to say this if he was talking about only a particular wife or only certain wives.

Do you believe it would have been OK for an unmarried woman not to be silent and submissive? Does the law require this only of married women?

And what part of the law is Paul referring to?

gyne is the ordinary Greek word for women, whether married or not. It can mean wife but it need not be a wife.

There is no reason to believe that Paul is discussing unconverted and untaught women. He doesn't refer to anything of that nature in 1 Cor. 11 or 14 or in 1 Tim. 2.

If that were the problem, we could expect Paul to mention it. But as it is, Paul refers to the creation of Adam and Eve and to the Fall as explanations of what he's telling the "brothers." He also refers to "the Law" as supporting what he is instructing the men to do with regard to women being silent and submissive in all the churches of the saints.

It seems to me that your explanation above contains conjecture.

Can you make a clear and convincing connection between Paul's instructions and the idea that the women were relatively few in number and that they were unconverted and untaught?

[Neil D]

Notice these points:

1) Paul's instructions are addressed to "brothers," i.e., the male members of the church.

Paul does not say, "What therefore is it, brothers AND SISTERS?"

[doug yowell]

Christian Egalitarians [contrary to the Complimentarian view] believe that full partnership is the most biblical view. As persons, husband and wife, [men and women] are of equal value. There is no priority of one spouse [gender] over the other. In truth, they are one.

The Christian Egalitarian view,contrary to the Complimentarian view, believes that role inclusiveness equates to equal value.This they plainly attempt to establish. Misrepresenting the Complimentarian view as an expression of the lesser value of the woman, they present as proof THEIR focus on their belief that value is ultimately determined by whether or not men and women can have access to the same roles. This ultimately must permeate all human relationships and would naturally result in the abolition of the man's being the head or high priest of the family unit. No wonder EGW noted in PP 58,59 "...now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved ONLY by submission on the part on one or the other." Peter asks wives to call their husbands "lord"(not vice versa or mutually) as did Sarah to Abraham. He then counsels husbands to view their wives as the "weaker vessel" and be understanding of their situation. Then he tells men that under these conditions they are both coheirs of eternal life. How does this harmonize with the Egalitarian version of oneness?

[Neil D]

Do you believe it would have been OK for an unmarried woman not to be silent and submissive? Does the law require this only of married women?

And what part of the law is Paul referring to?

[Neil D]

+There is no distinctive gender inclusion either. There need be no distinction in gender role with these gifts. Obviously the "teaching over" in the later mention is not the same as "a teaching" or a psalm, or a revelation. Your use of the Oracle's influence seems to indicate that only the unconverted women acted as prophets and only they were disruptive.And exactly what were they supposed to be submissive to, the continuity of the group? How do we know that these women were married to believers? If those women acted like that on a consistent basis do you really think the group would have needed Paul to disallow it from a couple hundred miles away? If it was allowed like that would the meetings have continued to function? Don't forget the broader context of the letter written because it was the Corinthian believers who were themselves acting in the Spirit out of the Spirit.

Because the language is neutral, and is not gender orientated, it has to include females...The parts of the service that instructed all, were also given to women...hence the lack of male gender words.

I believe it was a open service, done with all the orderliness as our footwashing services, where all were encouraged to prophecy. Because it was an open service where women, specifically unconverted wives of converted men, who were of the temple of Apollo could also prophecy in the Lord,but they disrupted the service. One of them [perhaps a couple of them, I don't know] disrupted the service with "Jesus is accursed"...See prior references of Paul dealing with this subject. Paul was dealing with many things, but he also wanted to keep people in church...too many rules and you will lose church members. You should have seen that in our churches today...

[Neil D]

f Paul speaks only with reference to local incidences, why does he write that what he is telling the Corinthians applies to "all the churches of the saints"?

Also, if it were a local problem, why does Paul refer to events at creation and to "the law" as the explanation for his instructions?

If the SDA church is ever going to make changes in this issue, the people need to hear a convincing answer from the Bible to these questions.

So far, I don't believe any convicing answers have been given which explain why Paul said what he did if he was indeed only speaking of a local problem.

Having gone thru the translations in reference to your "all the churches of the saints" [a KJV translation, btw], I find most translations place that phrase after the "The women should keep quiet" phrase, indicating very possible indication that all silents was to be AT THAT CHURCH...and not universal.

there were at least 3 translations that indicated specific women in that church, ie YOUR women...

There was one translation that specifically pointed out that WIVES were to keep silent [Message Bible]

The "keep silent" admonition was written to a church at Corinth that was a short forty mile boat ride away from the world famous Oracle at Delphi. At this temple women priestesses uttered babble which was interpreted and presented as messages from a pagan god. In 1Cor, Chapter 12, Paul introduces the subject of "spiritual gifts" and then he reminds church members they were once running after dumb idols themselves. Someone in the group had delivered an especially shocking "message" while claiming to be speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

1Cor 12:3 Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. (NAS)

So we have Paul defending spiritual gifts in this chapter while saying that this particular "prophet" was not being directed by the Holy Spirit! Again the KJV adds maleness to this person while the Greek says "no one". Later we learn these false prophets are female just like at Delphi! As we examine chapter 14 we find many references to speaking in languages (tongues) and the prophetic gift. Paul scolds the disrupters and demands that prophets keep control over their own spirits. Paul finally makes a ruling affecting the entire ekklesia, a word that means "the converted true believers, the called out ones":

A clear translation is,

Let those women keep silent among the called out ones

The New American Standard: Let the (THOSE) women keep silent in (AMONG) the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

Let those women--who are not yet a part of the converted membership-- keep silent among the called out ones-- the ekklesia -- and subject themselves to their poor embarrassed, converted husbands. Rather than participating in services as the converted women do, they are to ask their husbands to instruct them at home. The KJV adds several words to this verse that are not in the Greek manuscripts, adding "your" to women, and the phrase "they are commanded". These added words make it sound like a universal ruling against ALL the women when it is not.

now this sounds more like a Paul that I can live with, and in keeping with the message of the bible that all not only have equal status in Christ, but that the message permeates in all practical areas of our lives...And it doesnt denegrate a woman nor her status in the Lord.

BTW John, can you list any texts of NT women who followed Jesus? Besides Mary, Martha, .....?

[doug yowell]

.

I believe it was a open service, done with all the orderliness as our footwashing services, where all were encouraged to prophecy. Because it was an open service where women, specifically unconverted wives of converted men, who were of the temple of Apollo could also prophecy in the Lord,but they disrupted the service. One of them [perhaps a couple of them, I don't know] disrupted the service with "Jesus is accursed"...See prior references of Paul dealing with this subject. Paul was dealing with many things, but he also wanted to keep people in church...too many rules and you will lose church members. You should have seen that in our churches today...

You believe that because it fits your conclusion not because it has any basis in either the Bible record, basic reason,or revealed evangelical methods. If the Christians were kicked out of the synogogue by the Jews for preaching Christ as Messiah,are we supposed to believe that the Church meeting next door at Justis' house, made up of both Jew and Gentile, would invite pagans to share their pagan faith alongside of the new converts??? The suggestion itself borders on the ludicrous. Completely voiding God's counsel "what communion does light have with darkness?"

[CoAspen]

Quote:

You believe that because it fits your conclusion not because it has any basis in either the Bible record, basic reason,or revealed evangelical methods.

Opinion, not fact!

Would it your self and many others!

My interpretation fits this way, your interpretation its that way! In the end we all choose our own and thats life!!

[doug yowell]

Quote:

You believe that because it fits your conclusion not because it has any basis in either the Bible record, basic reason,or revealed evangelical methods.

Opinion, not fact!

Would it your self and many others!

My interpretation fits this way, your interpretation its that way! In the end we all choose our own and thats life!!

Yep,and either everybody's wrong or someone is right.So, nothing attempted, nothing gained.

[Neil D]

You believe that because it fits your conclusion not because it has any basis in either the Bible record, basic reason,or revealed evangelical methods.

[John317]

Notice these points:

1) Paul's instructions are addressed to "brothers," i.e., the male members of the church.

Paul does not say, "What therefore is it, brothers AND SISTERS?"

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Excuse me? The word translated is "brothern"...And yes, it does have a masculine gender to it...but it can be translated as "a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection" Or "having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman", much like addressing a letter "Sirs" when there is an unknown woman who the letter is actually going to..or say something like "My fellow Americans..." Or " My friends..." and yes, it can be addressed the way you want it to be...but,this is known as "twisting the greek for one's benefit".

Something tells me I'm talking with someone who has never studied NT Greek. If you had, you would never say what you said above.

First of all, there is no difference between "brothers" and "brethren" as far as the original Greek is concerned.

What do you mean by saying, "it does have a masculine gender to it..."?

The Greek noun in 1 Cor. 14: 26 is adelphoi. Can you parse it?

The lexicon form is adelphos.

It is Strong's #80, and is never addressed to women.

If you believe adelphoi is used in addressing women in the NT, please show the examples.

The Greek noun for "sisters" is adelphee and occurs 24 times in the NT.

The fact that Paul is primarily addressing the men in 1 Cor. 14 is shown by the words, "your women," "they are not allowed," "if they want to inquire," the use of "brothers" [Gk adelphoi](vv.26, 39), "they should ask their own husbands [Gk andras,]," "anyone [Gk tis]," which is a masculine pronoun meaning "any man," (vv. 27, 37).

I'm not saying that the message is only for men and not at all for women, but this portion of the letter-- which has to do with Paul's instructions concerning worship-- is addressed especially to the men in the church. And that is because the men are the ones who are responsible for the leadership in the church.

If Paul were addressing both men and women, he would have said, "brothers and sisters," not merely "brothers."

1 Cor. 7:15

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother [adelphos] or sister [adelphee] is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

James 2:15

If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,

Matthew 12:50

For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

Matthew 19:29

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

[John317]

2) All of the nouns referring to people in verses 26 to 33 are in the masculine gender.

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Really? How come I have gender neutral translations?

Because they are not literal translations. Not all Greek words show their gender in translation. You have to look at the Greek original in order to see this.

Some translations add "sister" when it is not in the Greek text. They do it because of "political correctness," in order not to offend people who want everything to be gender neutral. Paul-- or rather the Holy Spirit, who inspired Paul-- obviously was not concerned with such matters.

[John317]

And how come, when Paul discusses the service he uses gender neutral words- In fact, the TEV, a version that you point out, says this-

Well, my brothers and sisters, let's summarize. When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.

I like the TEV and other modern translations, but it's a fact that it is not a literal translation. It is what's called a "dynamic translation." It usually won't give you the exact wording of the original but instead it translates thought for thought rather than word for word.

To see the difference, compare Youngs Literal Translation with the TEV.

The bottom line is that there is not a single Greek manuscript or printed text which reads "brothers and sisters."

[John317]

How come, when addressing parts of the service, Paul uses gender neutral words.

Could you give examples? Are you talking about the Greek original or the English translations?

Today many translations use gender neutral words, but such language does not reflect the original language.

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

The context of this passage indicates that women were doing something in the service, ie prophecy...along with other things like "singing" and "teaching"...ect...

Most definitely women were doing those things in the worship service. Paul's words are not to be understood as prohibiting women from taking part in worship. Women were singing, praying, and some were prophesying. (See 1 Cor. 11: 5.)

What Paul is saying is that the women are to be "in submission, as the Law says." Paul writes the same idea in 1 Tim. 2: 11, 12--

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

So Paul is not saying that women cannot talk at all in church. But when they talk, and in whatever else they do in the church, they are to be under the authority of male leadership.

Question: Why was Paul inspired to write this? That is to say, Why is God concerned with what gender is exercising authority in the church and in the home?

[John317]

In verses 33, 34, Paul makes it clear that the men are in charge of who speaks and who does not.

34 Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says.

Paul does not say, "Now you women, I don't want you to speak." No. Paul instructs the men not to allow women "in the churches of the saints" to speak, because the women are to be silent and "submissive, as the law also says."

I'd like to hear your opinion of why Paul is saying this to the men of the church. Why are the men to determine who speaks and who doesn't speak in the church?

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Of course, I don't think so...

Do you mean you don't think Paul intended the men to be the leaders in the church and to exercise authority?

How then do you explain 1 Tim. 2: 11-15--

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. [13] For [or because] Adam was formed first, then Eve; [14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. [15] Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

There's also the fact that there's not a single instance of Titus or Timothy being instructed to appoint women as elders or bishops, etc.

There are women deacons in the NT, but you'll notice that the deacons don't have the responsibility of teaching the word of God. That is the work of elders, pastors, and bishops.

[John317]

I think that Paul is urging the churches to start a policy of limiting the participation of "those" wives, unconverted wives, who must subject themselves to their converted husbands, not causing any further disruption.

But if that were the case, why does Paul say what he does in 1 Tim. 2: 11,12 and in 1 Cor. 14: 34?

These verses indicate that Paul is talking about women in general.

Verse 34 probably said, "the women," but it doesn't make any difference if it says "your women" or "your wives." It doesn't suggest that it's referring only to women who are causing disturbances.

There's also no reference to unconverted women or to a problem with women teaching false doctrine. Again, Paul gives as his reason the fact that the law says women are to be subject to their husbands. And in 1 Tim. 2, Paul gives as his reason the fact that Adam was created first, and Eve was deceived. This is very strange if indeed Paul's reason was that some women were causing disturbances.

Why doesn't Paul say the husbands must subject themselves to the wives? Why doesn't Paul tell the men that they must be silent and not speak in the church?

Notice the following:

Quote:

Ephes. 5:19-24

addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, [20] giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, [21] submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

[22] Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

[23] For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. [24] Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Col. 3:18

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Titus 2:4,5

and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, [5] to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

1 Peter 3:1-5

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives— [2] when they see your respectful and pure conduct. [3] Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing— [4] but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. [5] For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their husbands,

It's clear that Scripture teaches that women are to submit to their husbands and the husband is the head of the wife.

How does this play out in the home and in the church?

What if the situation is reversed, so that the leadership in the church are the women? Would such a situation also affect the home? How could the husbands in the home be the head of the wife if the wife is the leader in the church?

Has modern man outgrown the instructions of God in the Bible concerning leadership in the church and in the home?

[John317]

Paul's reference to "the Law" may be a reference to Genesis 3:16 which relates to being subject to a husband in marriage.

Do you believe God meant that the time would come when people should ignore or reject God's arrangement for the relationship between husband and wife?

Do you think there's any relationship between the home and the church?

Notice what Ellen G. White wrote in Patriarchs and Prophets, page 59:

Quote:

Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God--in harmony with His great law of love--they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden. {PP 58.3}

Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan. In their efforts to reach positions for which He has not fitted them, many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing. In their desire for a higher sphere, many have sacrificed true womanly dignity and nobility of character, and have left undone the very work that Heaven appointed them. {PP 59.1}