₦airaland Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr6sMxUSD88
^{by Derek Walker}

[size=18pt]1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
Should Women be Silent in Church?[/size]

VIDEO'S TRANSCRIPT:
One controversy concerns the role of women in church ministry. One scripture in particular seems to exclude women from any public ministry:

'Let your women keep SILENT in the churches,
for it is NOT PERMITTED FOR THEM TO SPEAK;
but they are commanded to be under obedience,
as THE LAW also SAYS.
And IF they want to learn something,
let them ask their own husbands at home,
for it is SHAMEFUL FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN CHURCH.'
(1 Corinthians 14:34,35)

Some would explain this away as a special command to the unruly women at Corinth to straighten-up, rather than a general command to all women everywhere. But if we treat one scripture this way, what is to stop us treating every scripture this way? Surely the New Testament is written for the whole church.

The subject of the passage is: 'THE WOMEN IN THE CHURCHES (plural)'. This means-'all women.' Moreover the command is based on 'the law' which means it applies to all, rather than just to those in a particular culture or time.

Let us consider what this passage is literally saying. The word for 'silent' does not mean 'quiet' Thus it is not saying that women should have a quiet (meek) spirit. The word translated 'silent' means no word can be spoken!

It is saying WOMEN MUST BE (completely) SILENT IN CHURCH. This doesn't just disqualify them from teaching but also from testifying, praying, prophesing and moving in the gifts of the Spirit-the latter being the context of these verses (1 Cor 12:1)

The First Problem with this passage, is that it contradicts Paul's other teaching in this book.
For he says women may pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor 11:3-5).
In 1Corinthians 12, especially in v13-27 he teaches that all members of the church (men and women), are members of the body and thus have a function in the body working in co-ordination with each other, and so we can all be used in the gifts and ministries of the Spirit.

So, he says: 'if ALL (men and women) prophesy' (1 Cor 14:24)
'When you come together, EVERY ONE (men and women) of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation.' (v26)
'You may ALL prophesy one by one.' (v31)

So, why would he say 3 verses later that all women must be silent in church? Is he being doubleminded?
So the first problem is that in the middle of encouraging everyone to move out in ministry, he is telling all women to be silent!

This also contradicts the spirit of the New-Testament with Jesus treating women with honour, with the churches set free from all Jewish traditions (Acts15), with full equality in the church (Gal 3:28) and with the Spirit poured upon all flesh (male and female) to give power for ministry (Acts 1:8, 2:4,16-18)

A Second Problem is the discouragement upon women from even learning:
'and IF THEY WANT TO LEARN.' The tone of this is condescending to women, that not only should they not speak, it is optional for them to learn the Word (it is even mildly frowned upon as if it were not really their place.) This is clearly in contradiction to the New Testament teaching for women and contrasts with what Paul said in 1Timothy 2:11: 'LET a woman learn.' Here he encourages women to study the Word. Here he speaks against those who would discourage them.

A Third Problem is the AUTHORITY used:
'IT IS NOT PERMITTED FOR THEM TO SPEAK ..AS THE LAW ALSO SAYS.'

Which Law is this? There are 4 possibilities:
(1) The Old Testament Scripture. (The Law of Moses)
It is usually referred to by 'It is written' (1 Cor 1:19,31; 3:19,20; 4:6; 9:9; 10:11, 14:21; 15:45,51)

(2) The Teaching of Jesus (1 Cor 7:10).

(3) The Apostolic Teaching and Tradition
-that which Paul and others received by revelation from the Lord (1 Cor 7:12) Paul received special new revelations to meet the needs of a new situation (the Church Age where many Gentiles were becoming believers on an equal footing with the Jews). For example: 1 Cor 2:10-13,16; 4:1,15-17, 7:6,10,12,17,25; 11:1,2,16,17, 23; 14:36,37; 15:1,3

(4) The Oral Law of the Jews (later written as the Talmud)- the interpretation of Moses' Law by the Scribes and Pharisees. It is followed by the Orthodox Jews to this day as of equal authority to the Bible. They falsely claimed it was passed down from Moses by word of mouth. Jesus clashed with Pharisees over this law. He rejected it and came against it's legalistic spirit (Matt15:3, Mark7:3).

Now when 1 Cor 14:34,35 refers to a law of silence for women, it couldn't be:
(1) because there's no such law in the Old-Testament and he would say 'it is written';
neither is it found in the Gospels (2).
Neither is it (3) because it is clearly a pre-existing law.
Therefore by a process of elimination it must be (4) The Jewish Oral Law (the laws of the Pharisees)

This is confirmed by the phrase: 'As also SAYS the Law.' - a reference to the ORAL law rather than the WRITTEN law (scripture).
(see also Matt 5:21,27,31, 33,38,43)

Also, we know this because it agrees completely with the Talmud and applies to Orthodox synagogues today. The service is for men only. Women are discouraged from even learning, but are sometimes allowed to watch from the gallery, for their place is at home not with things too high for them! And it would be shameful for them to speak in a meeting.

TALMUDIC QUOTES illustrate this:
A Jewish Prayer:'Praise God He hasn't created me a gentile, a woman or an ignorant man.'
'The woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to the man.'
Only men could speak in public (Beraktoth 4,36; Mishnah Aboth 1,5)
No woman could give a testimony or conduct business. (Mishnah Shabbath 4,1)

Women were viewed with disregard and repression, and the Talmud contains many distasteful insults of women's character. They were to be avoided. They were not required to know or fulfil the law and so few were learned.

One said: 'May the words of the Torah be burned rather than be given to women.'
In public worship they were segregated and silenced and so had to ask questions of their husbands at home.

Clearly the writer of 1 Cor 14:34,35 reflected this Pharisaical attitude to women and used this Jewish Law to support his views.

So why would Paul say something that stands in contradiction to the immediate context and the rest of the New Testament? Why would he establish this teaching on Jewish Laws that elsewhere, both he and Jesus rejected?

The simple answer is these verses are not Paul's teaching!
Paul's letters are written in response church situations. 1 Corinthians is the most responsive of them all. Paul had received reports about what was going on (1:11, 5:1, 6:1,8 ), and the church had sent a letter to Paul with many questions (7:1,8,10,12,25; 8:1,4; 12:1; 16:1). There was disunity (1:10-12,3:3). In particular there were 2 groups of people saved from different backgrounds disputing -Jews who tended toward legalism, and Greeks who tended toward license. Paul goes through the issues and questions raised one by one.

Examples of when Paul is clearly responding to what one group has said are 6:15-20 (Greeks); 9:1-11; 11:1-16 (Jews) and 15:12,35,36.

Sometimes he refers what they are saying and then he answers them -e.g.1 Cor 4:8: 'You are already full! You are already rich! You have reigned as kings without us.' (this is what some of them had claimed) --'and indeed I wish you did reign, that we might also reign with you.' (Paul's answer - see also 4:10)

Sometimes he even quotes what they say and then answers them. The problem is that there are no punctuation or quote marks in the Greek and the translators often miss them out.

Some examples of this, are when he responds to the 'loose' Greeks as in 6:12,13:
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but all things are not helpful.'
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but I will not be brought under the power of any.'
(You say) 'Food is for the stomach and the stomach for foods.'
(I Paul) say: 'but God will destroy both it and them.'
We see the same in 10:23,24.

In questions about idols Paul challenges those who pride themselves in their knowledge but who do not hold it in love. (8:1-3) 8:4: 'We know that -'an idol is nothing in the world and that there is but one God' (again he quotes their words (their knowledge) before he answers as confirmed in v10,11.

Other examples are when he responds to the 'legalistic Jews', 7:1:
'Now concerning what you wrote to me,
(some of you said) 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.'
(But I Paul say) 'Nevertheless because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife...'

Now we can understand what is happening in 1 Cor 14:34,35.
Paul is quoting what some Jewish converts to Christ, had written in a letter to Paul, complaining about women being involved in church services. Although they were saved they were used to male-dominated synagogue - worship and so found the equality of women in church life hard to take.

They were saying: 'Paul, these women are prophesying, praying out loud, speaking in tongues. The Oral law says it's shameful for a woman to speak in public. Tell them to shut-up!'

So as Paul is teaching on every member participating in church services, it is the natural place for him to deal with their objection. So he quotes what they say: 'Let your women keep silent in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in church' (v34,35)

Then he answers them: 'What, came the word of God out from you? or came it to you only? If any think himself a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you (not the Talmud) are the commandments of the Lord (the true authority) But if any (choose to be) be ignorant, let him be ignorant.' (v36-38) Paul replies by asserting his apostolic authority above the Talmud.

This also explains why these verses come out of the blue, interrupting the flow of thought, which is picked up again in v39,40: 'Therefore brethren,covet to prophesy and do not forbid to speak with tongues.'

The placement of v34,35 in the passage as a clear interruption and marked contrast to what Paul is teaching, serves to separate them from Paul's own views.

We conclude that Paul isn't silencing women, rather the opposite!

Those who are too quick to agree with v34,35 have unwittingly submitted to an unchristian pharisaical spirit

esere826:
yeah, i'm back to an internet friendly zone ooo

Thanks

Coolio, no probs, I'll soon publish the video and post the transcript

vooks:
SirJohn,
Now that you mentioned it, what is it with Joagbaje that he can't discern charlatans and liars from the real deal
despite claiming to be Spirit Baptized evidenced by tongues and working miracles?

@PaulGrundy,
You look convinced, wanna try him out? Burn some spare $90 and watch him stammer and cold read you

https://s15.postimg.org/srvaxghl3/brand.jpg
Its due to the branding and the brand selling
When seared with the brand... one becomes numb to discerning charlatans and liars from the real deal
They cant discern, as after the branding they dont feel anymore

These people will speak lies disguised as truth.
Their consciences have been scarred as if branded by a red-hot iron.
- 1 Timothy 4:2 GOD'S WORD® Translation

edogho:
aye, Jack Miles said so..

and I say d price of experience are damn too high...
and d worst is only a few can exactly draw knowledge from others' experiences and gain wisdom...

and what if Jack was wrong? what if (like most Africans) I don't learn from my/other's experience?
how would experience now shape my character?
is there a chance that Jack's parochial (for want of word)

Wisdom or wise, what is wisdom, who is wise? One making or one who makes right or good decision(s) on something or anything
Foolish or fool, what is foolish, who is a fool? One making or one who makes wrong or bad decision(s) on something or anything

As for nothing learning from experiences
well, even kids soon figure out that if you dont learn from experience, you get your fingers burned

No doubt we all begin life with innocence and/or start it with lack of experience,
The character development on the blank canvas ensues from our painful and exhilarating experiences

Jack's parochial? I dont think so
You definitely have heard the phrase "out of character" and know the implication

lastmessenger:
Especially when the rules stand in the way of personal interest

^^^
https://s30.postimg.org/j6e1j8mk1/rule2.jpg
You'll know when to do it

lastmessenger:
I am not a muslim
but the only thing that I have to say is that the rich Muslims takes Islamic rules on a lighter note.
The same is applicable to Christianity.

^^^
https://s8.postimg.org/w6qsbqiud/drivingontheroad_02.jpg
It is called driving on the path and know when to break the rule

edogho:
bravo, neither will any teacher nor teaching make u aware of ur self.
take knowledge from different sources buh don't joke with experience, it's ur best bet- Mind Power

Harnessing d power of the mind

^^^
Experience shapes character, and character determines action
a character totally without experience is all but a contradiction in terms
- excerpt from page 87, GOD - A BIOGRAPHY by Jack Miles

shdemidemi:
Both brothers were alike in that they were working for a reward from their father and never wanted him; they both used their father to get what they wanted (selfish ends).

These two divides represents the different motives we have in our churches today: some of us go to church because there is a promise of good coming our way (as in material things) and some also come because they don’t want to go to hell. In other words, there must be gain before I step out to any church. Our leaders in turn are wise enough to advertise their churches as a product, presenting or advertising on what you can get if ever you decide to come to their churches. We use God to get what we want in our own way; very few present or advertise the love for the Father, even if there is nothing materialistic to gain and that’s where we are missing it. This is where both sons missed it.

^^^
Jesus answered,
"Very truly I tell you,
you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed
but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.
- John 6:26 NIV

Jesus replied,
"I tell you the truth,
you want to be with me because I fed you,
not because you understood the miraculous signs.
- John 6:26 NLT

mmsen:
Those are very clear and concise quotes lifted straight from the Bible or the writings of one of the best respected Protestant theologians.

Still grabbing at more straws...
I laughed myself silly reading your first and did same more with your second above

Your "very clear and concise quotes lifted straight from the Bible" (i.e. Genesis 3:16, Exodus 21:7 and 1 Cor. 11:7)
and especially your "prize verse" (i.e. 1 Cor. 7:1) are all taken and presented here out of context

Allowing oneself to enjoy the pleasure of some serious study would have uncovered the deeper meaning and significance of details in Genesis 3:16 or Exodus 21:7

Also, here is to responding to your "Famous theologians such as Martin Luther" or "the best respected Protestant theologians"
these are typical dangers we face, when we take their ostensible writings or teachings, their unsound ideas, reasons and opinions in, as the real deal

The so called "...writings of one of the best respected Protestant theologians" are meant to be read or taken with a pinch of salt
and not to be unceremoniously gobbled up hook, line and sinker

You would agree that the Talmud or the Hadith does not hold water, as far as the primary authority of Scripture or the Quran is concerned.

Your "the writings of one of the best respected Protestant theologians" is actually akin to the Talmud or the muslim's Hadith.
Well, as a matter of fact, it actually shares the same fate as the Talmud or the Hadith
(i.e. as far as the primary authority of Scripture or the Quran is concerned, their writings do not hold water)
- "shine your eyes, open your eyes and see the Truth"

johnydon22:
Alright now most of you all are blaming paul,

You must have been reading a different thread, if not, then you definitely are making things up
No one has blamed Paul on this thread except possibly OP
As a matter of fact, Paul is innocent and acquitted of any libel and/or charge put to him

johnydon22:
i thought ALL scriptures are breathed word of god...

I am not sure which bible you read "scriptures" ending with a "s"
For the record, ALL scripture are breathed word of God,
translations from the original Hebrew & Greek text, adding chapters or verses to them, are not breathed word of God

Also johnydon22, mind you, there is:
the written law (i.e. Scripture or Torah)
the oral law (i.e. Talmud or oral Torah)
the Bible (i.e. 66 books made up of: Scripture - Torah, the Hebrew Bible or Jewish canon - Tanakh, letters etcetera)

johnydon22:
Or is it that you choose when its convenient enough for you to claim god did it or blame the writer.. "Common christians decide already"

Don't have a clue what you're going on about there

mmsen:
So the Bible is not the unerring word of god?

Because the Bible is very consistent when it comes to the standing of women:

Genesis 3:16 - "A woman shall be ruled by her husband"

Exodus 21:7 - "Women can be sold"

1 Cor. 11:7 -"For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

And let us not forget this prize verse:

1 Cor, 7:1 - "It is good for man to have nothing to do with a woman"

Famous theologians such as Martin Luther subscribed to the notion that women were inferior, writing -
"boys are good crops, girls are weeds".
AND "If women become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that is why they are there."

This is the nature of xtianity, like it or not

... grabbing at straws

esere826:
I should be able to

^^^
I asked because I know you once relocated and wasn't sure where exactly you are right now

I will provide a video which after watching it, I'll like to know what you thought of it

I will also provide a transcript of the video
but to be honest reading the transcript without actually watching the video, wouldn't give the information provided in the video any justice at all, as one can't read from the transcript, as demonstrated in the video, the tones Paul allegedly used when he wrote the letter to the set of "aggrieved" Corinthians

Anyways, watch out for the video & transcript, as I am still on the road, driving. I will post both as soon as I am back indoors

esere826:
...Frosbel is not far from your point either
He concludes that ancient lying scribes made the changes
while you suggest that modern unskilled scribes were not able to properly transcribe the message

the meeting point is that there is possibly a misrepresentation of what Paul said in this verse

I beg to differ sir, as I would only agree that "lying" scribes made the changes to verses like 1 John 5:7 AND NOT TO 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Yes "unskilled" scribes were not able to properly transcribe the message 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, as the question mark in English only got invented afterward most or the early translations

Tradition or ignorance let later translators, instead of inserting question marks, left the semi colon in English translations, just as it was in the original Greek text

Besides, people misconstrue that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a teaching of Paul when the opposite is really the case

PS: esere826 you sabi watch a 26 minutes long video wherever you are?

esere826:
[size=5pt]BabaGnoni

Yours is another great point of view with regards to Paul speaking sarcastically
and it is possible.

Many times, the bible somehow does not easily capture the emotional undertones behind statements made
I noticed such gaps with some of Jesus comments in the new testament which did not make sense to me previously
however, when I reviewed them after giving Jesus more human emotional attributes, they began to make more sense to me.

but then again BabaGnoni
Frosbel is not far from your point either
He concludes that ancient lying scribes made the changes
while you suggest that modern unskilled scribes were not able to properly transcribe the message

the meeting point is that there is possibly a misrepresentation of what Paul said in this verse[/size]

^^^
https://s13.postimg.org/efn1dd27r/image.jpg
Back in the day, when I used to watch TV,
It was him above, I watched on Revelation TV, who put 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 into perspective
and set me off to further research into the or to confirm the punctuation dilemma, particularly the question mark punctuation
- for years, now only watch TV once in a blue moon, when on vacation or when not at home

PS: FAO esere826, the two below quotes
"the meeting point is that there is possibly a misrepresentation of what Paul said in this verse"
- © esere826

"It is bad pedagogy to sit or park at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 alone
when the clincher actually is a verse or two away, in 1 Corinthians 14:36-38
The import of Paul's message in that letter to the Corinthians is clear in 1 Corinthians 14:36-38"
- © BabaGnoni

frosbel:
For many centuries women have not been allowed to lead or to teach in churches based in part upon what God supposedly stated in 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 35.

1 Corinthians 14:34 and 35 (NASB)
(34) 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.
(35) 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.

There is good evidence that these two verses were not part of Paul’s original writing, but were added to the text by scribes or copyists. It is never desirable to change Christian practice by omitting a verse of the Bible. Nevertheless, it is honest to recognize that occasionally the biblical text was changed, and in this case there are a number of pieces of evidence that certainly seem to warrant removing these verses that say women should be silent in the church. Before we examine those, however, it must be admitted that if these verses are an addition to the Greek text, it would have been an early addition, because the verses appear in the Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians.

Please Read the rest
http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/should-women-be-silent-in-the-church-a-biblical-study-of-1-corinthians-1434-and-35


"How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" - Jeremiah 8:8

esere826:
Hi frosbel

Nice question, I also read the link you provided. This is my opinion:

It is very possible that Paul did say that women should not speak in church.
Unlike what the article in the link says, the text does flow perfectly.
It talks about confusion and disorder and tries to manage this by limiting the amount of outspoken voices in a congregation.

If my assumption is correct, then the challenge would be to answer this question: "was what Paul said the word of God?"

For those that hold literarily tight to the bible. Their answer would be "yes, afterall, all scriptures are God-breathed"
For those that allow some loose ends, Pauls conclusion to his statement would make them have no choice than to agree that it was the word of God. For paul says: "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment."
Some will just form ignoring and skip that chapter about women silence in church.

I on my part think that Paul was not correct if indeed he said both.
In my opinion (still assuming he said both) he was either
1) giving a command from God which God meant for that time
or
2) making reference to earlier Jewish traditions (considered as God's commandment) of male -female separation in synangogue activities
or
3) he was mis-representing God

Now, I'll push further.
If it was (3), then I will still be able to understand and empathise with him.
In our modern day, we have folks who are close to God, or who like to think that they are closer to God than others.
What I have observed is that these folks do a lot of mis representation of God. They say what God says, and add theirs
and then sum up everything as coming from God

But why would they mis-represent God?
It is understandable.
I doubt that many times we who call ourselves Christians have actually heard God speak in plain human-like language
my experience is that he tends to speak in inprints
when you receive that imprint you then try to translate it into language
in translating it, you use your words which are many times coloured by your personality, and values
in fact (and typical of any oral transfer of information) the time gap between the imprint and when you say it can give enough room for the story to blossom beyond what was originally said except you write it down immediately

Despite this flaw in the communication process,
what you end up saying does carry the nucleus of the initial message although the peripherals might have been distorted
For example, I suspect that the message of tithing, first fruits etc have been seriously distorted.
however the nucleus of still remains the same. That we should make finance available for the Church to spend in achieving the goals of Christ

Still on the matter of Paul, my conclusion is that if indeed it was number (3) that happened
it did not shift from the original message/command which was that:
....there should be some order in church.

The original post I read the first time round
and decided until now, there and then not to dignify it with a comment

Also since the OP was DOA, I wondered why anyone would bother to read the link provided
but then esere826 resurrected the thread, which led to visiting the link filled with curiosity, after reading esere826's comment.

No surprises, the web link turned out to be leading people down a rabbit trail with uninformed point of view(s), as earlier suspected it would.

Paul wrote those verses alright, no doubt about that
Thus did he write them and writing them that way did he write them out with the semi-colon(s) signifying the interrogative question mark(s)

When those verses are read slowly but loudly, the note of sarcasm in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 can be detected or spotted
When those verses are read slowly but loudly, one could easily & faintly discern that Paul was mocking their remarks (i.e. the Corinthians)
Paul when replying back in his letter, was repeating their remarks, as read in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and repeated sneeringly he did
Sorry, mind the language, Paul was like:
"What the *$&#, you mean women should keep silent in the church?
Like, they arent to speak? They should be submissive, just as the law say..." etcetera etcetera

https://s9.postimg.org/tko2fbcen/Question_Mark2.jpg
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek/Alphabet#Punctuation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon#Greek_and_Church_Slavonic

- EXCERPT -

People need to recognise or understand that Paul has a peculiar style of writing, an ensemble of connotations, balanced sentences, periodic sentence, situation and purpose etc etc
1 Corinthians 14:34 is a good verse that stirs controversy out of not understanding Paul's style of writing

https://www.nairaland.com/1834549/falsehoods-paul/2#25142598

- /EXCERPT -
PS: frosbel dont be getting ideas from the link in the above excerpt ooo

Copyists messed things up alright but not the way the writer on that site is suggesting (i.e. suggesting they added texts to Paul's letter)
Copyists didnt add, doctor or insert into Paul's letter, rather it was punctuation dilemmas translators/copyists had to contend with
Click here for an idea: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/punctuation.htm

It is bad pedagogy to sit or park at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 alone when the clincher actually is a verse or two away, in 1 Corinthians 14:36-38
The import of Paul's message in that letter to the Corinthians is clear in 1 Corinthians 14:36-38

What the writer on that weblink should have scholarly concerntrated on, is the phenomenon called:
"The Greek question mark or semicolon puzzle"

clevvermind:
this is the point exactly.
God makes him stubborn so as to manifest his power in Egypt. it was God that did the hardening to fulfil a purpose.

clevvermind following the herd since 2000 BC

God doesnt make anyone stubborn or make anyone hard
God is not in that kind of business, even Hebrews 3:15 confirms that we harden our hearts when we refuse to listen to the voice of God
When God withdraws or removes element (e.g. water, a symbolism for his voice or word) that prevents stubbornness or hardening,
then that one has a free rein to become stubborn or harden up
Same with my clay and potter analogy
When you stop adding water and stop holding the clay when spinnning, the clay will fall of and eventually harden up
The Potter has in effect hardened the clay, as He said He would

Why should you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts?
After he had dealt severely with them, did they not send the people away, and they departed?
- 1 Samuel 6:6 ESV

As it is said,
“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”
- Hebrews 3:15 ESV

Scripture says,
"If you hear God speak today, don't be stubborn.
Don't be stubborn like those who rebelled."
- Hebrews 3:15 GOD'S WORD® Translation

https://www.nairaland.com/2112232/why-does-god-sometimes-hardens/2#30123402

stint:
With due respect sir, you are just not making sense. This analogy would have been good for other situations not this one. I dont see any correlation between two kids that would have fought without any inducement and pharaoh that needed to be haddenned for destruction.
My own conclusion is that we are Gods. And he moulds us like the potter moulds the clay, he make some to be put on fire(pots) and he makes everyone seeing this cos its very unlikely u are being hardened, i say this because those who are haddenned are usually not even aware of the possibility. You are aware. Fear God, he is in heaven doing what pleases him.

- EXCERPT -

oic again, as I thought you did know...

It is very similar to what happened to Pharaoh.
Both minds have already been made up
there is no point wasting time and effort on either anymore,
as they both were hellbent (i.e. both were determined to achieve at all costs what they've set their minds on to do)

The answers lie in the following verses:

But I will make Pharaoh's heart stubborn so I can multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in the land of Egypt.
- Exodus 7:3 NLT

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and just as the LORD had predicted to Moses, Pharaoh refused to listen.
- Exodus 9:12 NLT

²³He replied, “One of you who has just eaten from this bowl with me will betray me.
²⁴For the Son of Man must die, as the Scriptures declared long ago.
But how terrible it will be for the one who betrays him.
It would be far better for that man if he had never been born!”
²⁵Judas, the one who would betray him, also asked, “Rabbi, am I the one?”
And Jesus told him, “You have said it.”
- Matthew 26:23-25 NLT

When Judas had eaten the bread, Satan entered into him.
Then Jesus told him,
"Hurry and do what you're going to do."
- John 13:27 NLT

Judas like Pharaoh, can be compared with wet sponges...
Wet sponges that want to dry out the water keeping them wet, which eventually ends to getting hardened up
but are kept from drying up and hardening
by God keeping them wet through continually pouring water on the sponges
The moment God cuts off the stream of water pouring on them,
the sponges in a matter of time will dry out, harden up and be brittle

Have you ever tried pottery,
where you put the clay on the pottery wheel to make a vase
The clump of clay is always resisting you shaping it into the vase
The clump of clay will fall off the pottery wheel unfinished and damaged, the moment you let go your hands in molding it
Keep your hands on it until the end, you'll have a beautiful vase

Another analogy, is this:
Kid A and kid B, are sizing each other up, breathing into each one's face, each raring for a fight
Right at the nick of time, you step in to prevent the fight starting
but kid B, will not have none of that as adrenalin and testosterone is pumping high
Kid B is spoiling for the fight, despite all appeal or effort to prevent it
Everyone knows kid B is no match for Kid A, as kid A will beat the living day lights out of kid B
but kid B does NOT agree nor wants to know (i.e. kid B is hellbent, determined to fight at all costs, not matter what)
In effect, kid B's heart is hardening for/to fight
You harden kid B's heart, the moment you step back and allow kid B to have the fight, he's so much set his heart on

That's how Pharaoh's heart got hardened (i.e. the restraining, like in the case of kid B, was let off)
and similar happened to Judas, he was let go (i.e. as he was a lost cause, who couldn't be changed for the better)

https://www.nairaland.com/1820451/judas-iscariot-really-villain#24836472

- /EXCERPT-

Nothing to do with Pharaoh been programmed at all...
Pharaoh was a willing participant,
Pharaoh was raring to go bad.
God didn't like that, and so God was holding Pharaoh back nevertheless God eventually obliged him
and made do of the circumstances or made the best of it

PS: When God hands off one, then He allows the heart of whose He has taken His hands off to harden

https://www.nairaland.com/2112232/why-does-god-sometimes-hardens#30117553

omosefeeguaibor:
I once thought about this very same issue too,
and I realized this 1-
it was God's plan to use a pharaoh. now the question became why this particular pharaoh?
then I understood that many pharaoh has passed and God didn't punish anyone of them, the way he did with the pharaoh in question.
simply because the pharaoh was an object for destruction, to manifest God's power.
then again I realized that God must have seen something with this particular pharaoh.
not to talk of what we are seeing in terms of him being stubborn.
#brooding

^^^
#1 How does one build and raise a nation, and raise it covertly, without alarming other nations already inhabiting lands this nation was given to possess?
(i.e. recall Abraham and his offspring were promised those lands now inhabited 430 years ago)
Answer - Use Egypt, a superpower of that era
#2 God passes judgement when the cup is full with foaming wine (i.e. wine been a symbolism for divine judgments)
#3 God said He will pass judgement on Egypt and vindicate the Israelites
(i.e. pay back time for the Egyptians and set free time for the Israelites)
#4 Pharaoh was a law unto himself. God hands off him, obliged him and so Pharaoh gets his just desserts

Emmanuel247:
U know my man. U should read the verse again, u will see where God said that he himself will harden his heart..
He purposely hardened his heart for his own purpose. In other words

It was not fluid he was pouring into pharaoh's heart.......... Super glue I guess.

May God forgive me if I have spoken more than I should. Jah Bless

BasketMouth aint got nothing on you
I hear you. Enough respect to you and more grease to your elbows

adexsimply:
@BabaGnoni
I didn't say it was "contradictory".
You made an illustration of 2 kids A and B about to have a fight, you held kid B who was desperately aching for a fight despite the fact that you've separated them. At the end, you decided to step back and allow kid B to fight. You then assumed you were hardening the heart of kid B by stepping back, meanwhile what you did was allow him to choose to continue the fight or call it quit(Freewill

I know what you said
You said: "Nope, on the contrary, when you step back and allow kid B to fight, you're allowing him to choose (freewill)"

I actually made two illustrations to buttress the point

Mind you, the "choice" (i.e. to fight) has already been made but you were blocking or preventing the choice (i.e. the fighting or hardening) to occur or happen
You WILL let the fight happen or harden the heart when you remove the blocking or stop the prevention

Read this. Back in the day, at boarding school, when two kids are raring to fight
usually a senior or their mates try to prevent them from having the fight
sometimes the senior or their mates relent and give in because the boys are still doing "agidi and gra-gra" that they want to fight
When the principal asks who made them fight, the answer he usually gets is, it's the senior or the mates who did
- the boys were been separated and blocked from fighting each other,
but wouldn't have any of it so the senior or their mates allowed the boys to fight
So in a way, the senior or their mates allowed made them fight, although they, the boys in actual sense were raring to fight initially/fight as well

adexsimply:
Not really.

Yes he was. Pharaoh was willing and eager to "fight".
It was the hand of God on his heart that prevented it from hardening up

adexsimply:
No he didn't.

Yes He did. When God removed his hand off Pharaoh's heart, it means He eventually stepped back and respected Pharaoh's free will to harden up his heart.

adexsimply:
No he didn't.

Yes He did. I asked Pr0ton about symbolisms and reading on Hebrews 3:15 concerning this

adexsimply:

Yes, God allowed him to become stubborn, as he Pharaoh was keen or eager to become stubborn

adexsimply:
God didn't allow Pharaoh to harden up his heart, God actually aided the hardening up.

OK. OK so how did God aid the hardening up

adexsimply:
No

Yes.
Water, among many other representations, is also a symbol for the voice of God or word of God
Moses was made a god to Pharaoh,
but Pharaoh shut himself up and was ignoring the water, the voice of God or word of God which would soften his heart
and prevent it from hardening

adexsimply:
I don't get.

It is not a trick or trip question, just simple critical thinking
What will happen, is that, the sponge will hardened up without water poured on it
What will happen, is that, Pharaoh's heart will hardened up when he shuts himself out from God's voice or the word from God
and definitely harden when God withdraws to leave Pharaoh to his antics and fate
When God did this, God in effect harden Pharaoh's heart
No more "water", so whatever "seed" is planted on Pharaoh's heart is going to fall on hard rocky ground deaf ears of a heart,
it will choke and die

BabaGnoni:
^^^
https://i57.tinypic.com/34sp9j4.gif
ROTBL I'll let you off

clevvermind:
ok then, bring your view.
how did God hardens pharoah's heart?
question back to you. i want to learn.

^^^
You're not at sea, are you because I already have
so no need to boomerang me the question

clevvermind:
the how is that God makes him stubborn by his refusal to release the children of Israel.
God makes him to be obstinate.

^^^
https://i57.tinypic.com/34sp9j4.gif
ROTBL I'll let you off

Olufemiolaolu:
Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
4 430 years the Lord has been patient with pharaoh's generation oppression over children of Isreal.
Remember the Lord's mercy over d wicked has an expiring date.

OK, we hear you, so how did God do the hardening of Pharaoh's heart then?