Link doesn't work
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Women are to be silent when the Church assembles!
- Thread starter carlos123
- Start date
Link doesn't work
AirDancer
Member
Sorry about that....Let's see if this link will work ......
http://www.stepstolife.org/library/miscellaneous/women_speaking_church.htm
http://www.stepstolife.org/library/miscellaneous/women_speaking_church.htm
I was surprised by their words! Christianity has always been good for women. across all the avenues.
Two scriptures IMO they should carry the same weight.. They are both the Word of God.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Some scripture is complex some more complex than others.
Two scriptures IMO they should carry the same weight.. They are both the Word of God.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Some scripture is complex some more complex than others.
AirDancer
Member
I'm glad you enjoyed the link, Reba .... I appreciated the articles because they were well-written & succinct....and each author's stance was well presented and supported with facts. To think that 150 years or so ago, this thread's topic was at issue.
Wouldn't it be nice if we learned from history...and avoided the disharmony of the past?
Wouldn't it be nice if we learned from history...and avoided the disharmony of the past?
woodlandapple
Member
and yet also felt the need to put a disclaimer in the footnotes that show that they took seriously what you are dismissing outright; and the GNT footnote is more substancive than the generalization that is presented in most English versions, and also highlights the point that while it is included there in every bible; it is not there with the confidence that you are claiming Those that placed it there have expressed doubt; even if they do agree that it most probably belongs there. and this agrees with my whole point, that this passage is not easy and there is a lot to consider, that a plain viewing of the text is not enough; whatever your doctrinal conclusion is.
I never said it should, BUT the variations in 1Cor.14 ARE unusual and are highlighted where most variations are not; which is another reason why the confidence of this passage is not 100% even by those that place it there.
this is rediculous, trying to work out where this passage fits in the text has everything to do with how we try to understand what Paul is trying to say. It serves everyone. You make it sound like EVERY bible agrees with this passage and its place, I have already pointed out 8 where they dont.
Well, actually yes bible scholors do.
and again I will say then you would therefore need to discount most of the bible if you hold true to this opinion, as these very 'assumptions' are part of the foundations on which determine all the text that is shown in the bibles we have today.
and yet you do. because unless you can go back in time and hover over Pauls shoulder all we have to go on is theory, conjecture and assumption, we dont even have the original letter, so ANY reconstruction of it is based on theory, conjecture and assumptions.
they felt it important enought to qualify the placement with a footnote and a rough 70-75% confidence rating.
To demonstrate that this passage is NOT simple and NOT straightforward.
with all due respect, with just as much of a swoop you discount ALL the problems that the bible scholars have and are dealing with, and you know what? Bible scholars make mistakes; quite often. And you dismiss when they actually do say that there are problems with this passage.
you say you have utmost respect for bible scholars, I dont see how when you appose half of the tools that they use.
woodlandapple
Member
Trench is mainly contrasting the verbs λαλεῖν and λέγειν which are the infinitive forms of the verbs λαλέω and λέγω (both have the literal translation to speak), he throws in a whole heap of latin and hebrew words which are unhelpful. any word in this discourse starting in λαλ, means λαλέω and any word starting in λέγ means λέγω.
λέγω (and about a dozen other similar words) have the primary reference to the content of what is spoken - which I refered to as formal
λαλέω is primarily referencing the act of speaking with no reference to the content - which I labelled informal.
Therefore λαλέω is the normal word used when people are engaged in informal conversation, where the content of their words are not as relevant as the fact they are just talking. The reason why the grasshopper is making noise is secondary to the fact it is making noise. Because of this λαλέω is used when the sense of conversing, chatting or even babbling are wished to be conveyed.
When the intent is teaching, preaching or any formal address is given, where weight of the word is emphasised then words like λέγω are used.
In relation to 1Corinthians14 an argument is that: Pauls use of λαλέω in light of what it is used to emphasis can be shown that Paul is only commanding women to only remain silent when what they are saying has no meaningful content. If Paul wished to prohibit meaningful speaking as well he would have been better served using λέγω.
HOWEVER
as Trench points out:
"we plainly need not concern ourselves with such earlier, or even contemporary, uses of the words which we are discriminating....when these uses do not illustrate, and have not affected, their Scriptural employment"
"we plainly need not concern ourselves with such earlier, or even contemporary, uses of the words which we are discriminating....when these uses do not illustrate, and have not affected, their Scriptural employment"
Interestingly The same type and weight of evidence that both Trench and I use to dismiss its usage as 'chatter' is the same as those used to promote the reading of To keep Silence as the more biblically common To keep peace. Which is the same type and weight of evidence that Carlos in particular dismisses as assumptions.
and just because Im a little frustrated.........
A plain reading of this verb and a literal meaning tells us that Pauls usage of this verb indicates that it is speaking with no content that he is forbidding women to do. To suggest that it refers to all speaking is an assumption based on hocus pocus on what the author must have meant to say or not say, is ridiculous and is an unfit way to determine its reading.
Frustrations aside you could read the first paragraph of Trench and not go further because everything else is simply his clarification on the first paragraph and is quite dense. The only thing he offers new in his following paragraphs is his belief on how the differences are related in its biblical application (which is summed up nicely in your paraphrase) vrs how it is related in the broader sense of Koine Greek outside the NT (my definition above).
Last edited by a moderator:
Meaning of the word "silence" and why not speaking is important!
I'd like to now address something that has been brought up in this thread but which I have not had as much time as I would have liked to address until now.
It has been suggested that the word "silence" as used by Paul in 1 Cor 14:34 is of a kind that is limited in duration such that women must only remain silent when they are disrupting the church assembly but that they are allowed to speak when they are not being disruptive.
WoodlandApple put it this way "In light of the greek, I find it hard to believe that the Author intends for women to say nothing at all. Rather it is a command to not squabble, interrupt, interject, take control of. To keep the silence, keep the peace." (see http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41297&p=620872&viewfull=1#post620872 for the context of what was said by WoodlandApple)
Here again, and some of you will have to bear with me if I repeat some of what has already been said, is the verse where the word "silence" is used. All quotes are from the King James unless otherwise noted (I've used the NASB previously).
There is no dispute about the underlying Greek word which is translated "silence" above. It is σιγάω (also known as sigaō).
According to the New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version at http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/sigao.html the word means "to keep silence, hold one's peace; to be kept in silence, be concealed".
First off the word used (either in the Greek or the English) itself does not talk of not squabbling, interrupting, disrupting, or anything of the sort. It simply means to not speak. Now as to whether the silence commanded by Paul is temporary only for the purpose of not causing a disruption at any time during an assembly of the church or for the duration of an assembly...the word itself says absolutely nothing.
In other words one cannot determine the duration from a look at the word itself.
The only way to determine the duration of the silence that Paul commanded is to look at the sorrounding words and how sigao is used in context to see if anything gives an indication of how long the silence was intended to be. Whether limited or unlimited in the context of how it is used.
Sigao is used 12 times in 9 verses in the Greek underlying the King James Version.
Let's look at some of these verses to gain some sense of how the word is used by how it is used in other verses than 1 Cor 14:34. I've put an asterisk next to where Sigao is found in the underlying Greek.
Sigao is translated as "close" here. Meaning that they kept what they had seen close and did not let it out to anyone. As one might keep their voice close and not let it out in speaking. The NASB uses "kept silent" in place of "close".
I would like to point out that the duration of the not speaking about what they had seen was for the duration of time in which Jesus was on Earth. Not to say that 1 Cor 14:34 is necessarily of a similar long duration only that the silence can be for longer than a small amount of time as might be the case if one did not speak so as not to cause a disruption in an assembly of the church.
Here we see sigao used in connection with keeping something secret. The revelation referred to was kept secret from the beginning of the world until New Testament times. Again a very long duration. Unlimited until revealed once for all time. There was no being kept secret, revealing, being kept secret, revealing equivalent to being allowed to speak (when not disrupting), not speaking (when disrupting), speaking again (when not disrupting) and so forth.
Again I am not saying that 1 Cor 14:34 thus says unlimited silence. I am only pointing out that it could be unlimited depending on how the word is used in context.
Now let's look at the use of the word sigao closer to 1 Cor 14:34.
This is talking about the need of those who speak in tongues to keep silent regarding their speaking in tongues for the duration of a church assembly when there is no interpreter present.
A bit closer still we have...
The silence spoken of in this last verse is of a limited kind in that there is nothing in the text to support the notion that a prophet who had given way to another and allowed them to speak could not take up where he had left off when the one allowed to speak had finished saying whatever it was that they had been given to say by God.
This does NOT mean that the silence spoken of by Paul in 1 Cor 14 is also of a limited duration. Only that the contextual evidence so far is inconclusive such that 1 Cor 14 could be of either unlimited or limited silence.
We must keep looking. Let's look at bit after 1 Cor 14:34.
Here we have a clue as to whether the silence commanded by Paul is of a limited or unlimited duration. Notice the choice here. It is between speaking in church or speaking at home. No other option is given. A women can either ask (i.e. speak) at home regarding her wish to know something OR in church but not both. If she speaks in church it is a shame (the NASB uses the word "disgrace"). If she speaks (i.e. asks) at home it is perfectly acceptable.
The duration of silence regarding what she wants to ask about is unlimited for the duration of the assembled meeting.
Silence being the opposite of speaking.
Between the silence commanded of tongues speakers when there is no interpreter (unlimited silence for the duration of the meeting), the silence commanded of a prophet when another receives a revelation while sitting down (presumably limited until the one sitting down has had a chance to express themselves), and the silence commanded of a woman respecting what she wants to ask about (unlimited silence until she gets home at which time she can ask her husband) we have...
Notice that the verse does NOT say "Let your women not cause a disruption: for it is not permitted unto them to cause a disruption...". Rather it says that they are to keep silence and not permitted to speak. Speaking is the function which is addressed and limited. Not disruption.
The shame mentioned in the next verse (1 Cor 14:35) is connected with speaking. Asking about something. To ask (i.e. speak) in church is a disgrace. The shame is not connected with a woman wanting to know something but rather with her asking (i.e. speaking) out her desire to know in church.
The "it is not permitted unto them to speak" of verse 34 and the "for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" are connected around the same function. Namely speaking. For women, it is both not permitted and a shame for them to engage in speaking out in the assembly.
With asking their husbands about something they want to know during an assembly being an example of something they are not permitted to do (i.e. speak) and that is shameful (i.e. speaking out in church).
Paul's reasoning for not allowing a women to speak is that the Law commands women to be under obedience (i.e. under submission).
The following is my personal opinion...take it or leave it as such but as I prayed over these things the Lord seemed to lay the following on my heart respecting the why of why it is important for women to be silent in the assembly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now an obvious question is what is so important about a woman not speaking as an expression of submission (yes...I realize that "an expression of submission" is not in the text but that is what not speaking is. It is an outward expression of acting in line with the submission that the Law requires of a woman).
Submission implies authority. That the one submitting is submitting to a higher authority. The authority is implied meaning that it is not directly pointed out as an entity in itself but rather that it is pointed to by the act of submission. One does not submit unless one is under authority. The authority is there just not overtly and clearly seen other than through an act of submission - such as being silent.
It is interesting to note that 1 Cor 11 talks of a symbol of authority on the head of a woman. I believe that symbol is more appropriately a symbol of submission. Of being under authority since the context of the head covering instructions in 1 Cor 11 talk of the authority structure within the church (namely from Jesus Christ through the man to the woman).
Just as the head covering is a symbol of submission so too the silence commanded of women during an assembly of the church is an expression of submission. All pointing to the authority that is God operating within the assembly.
Without the symbol of submission and without the expression of submission one cannot readily see submission at all! One can talk about it all day but the symbol and expression are the outworking of submission in practice for all to see. And that submission on the part of the women points to God as the ultimate authority operating through the men in the assembly.
The whole (both men and women within their respective roles) pointing to and giving glory to God!
Silence on the part of the women is a beautiful thing. Not designed to suppress women at all (given that they can speak all they want to outside the assembly) but rather to allow them to participate (alongside the men) in giving glory to the Lord of all authority through the assembly!
Carlos
I'd like to now address something that has been brought up in this thread but which I have not had as much time as I would have liked to address until now.
It has been suggested that the word "silence" as used by Paul in 1 Cor 14:34 is of a kind that is limited in duration such that women must only remain silent when they are disrupting the church assembly but that they are allowed to speak when they are not being disruptive.
WoodlandApple put it this way "In light of the greek, I find it hard to believe that the Author intends for women to say nothing at all. Rather it is a command to not squabble, interrupt, interject, take control of. To keep the silence, keep the peace." (see http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41297&p=620872&viewfull=1#post620872 for the context of what was said by WoodlandApple)
Here again, and some of you will have to bear with me if I repeat some of what has already been said, is the verse where the word "silence" is used. All quotes are from the King James unless otherwise noted (I've used the NASB previously).
There is no dispute about the underlying Greek word which is translated "silence" above. It is σιγάω (also known as sigaō).
According to the New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version at http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/sigao.html the word means "to keep silence, hold one's peace; to be kept in silence, be concealed".
First off the word used (either in the Greek or the English) itself does not talk of not squabbling, interrupting, disrupting, or anything of the sort. It simply means to not speak. Now as to whether the silence commanded by Paul is temporary only for the purpose of not causing a disruption at any time during an assembly of the church or for the duration of an assembly...the word itself says absolutely nothing.
In other words one cannot determine the duration from a look at the word itself.
The only way to determine the duration of the silence that Paul commanded is to look at the sorrounding words and how sigao is used in context to see if anything gives an indication of how long the silence was intended to be. Whether limited or unlimited in the context of how it is used.
Sigao is used 12 times in 9 verses in the Greek underlying the King James Version.
Let's look at some of these verses to gain some sense of how the word is used by how it is used in other verses than 1 Cor 14:34. I've put an asterisk next to where Sigao is found in the underlying Greek.
Sigao is translated as "close" here. Meaning that they kept what they had seen close and did not let it out to anyone. As one might keep their voice close and not let it out in speaking. The NASB uses "kept silent" in place of "close".
I would like to point out that the duration of the not speaking about what they had seen was for the duration of time in which Jesus was on Earth. Not to say that 1 Cor 14:34 is necessarily of a similar long duration only that the silence can be for longer than a small amount of time as might be the case if one did not speak so as not to cause a disruption in an assembly of the church.
Here we see sigao used in connection with keeping something secret. The revelation referred to was kept secret from the beginning of the world until New Testament times. Again a very long duration. Unlimited until revealed once for all time. There was no being kept secret, revealing, being kept secret, revealing equivalent to being allowed to speak (when not disrupting), not speaking (when disrupting), speaking again (when not disrupting) and so forth.
Again I am not saying that 1 Cor 14:34 thus says unlimited silence. I am only pointing out that it could be unlimited depending on how the word is used in context.
Now let's look at the use of the word sigao closer to 1 Cor 14:34.
This is talking about the need of those who speak in tongues to keep silent regarding their speaking in tongues for the duration of a church assembly when there is no interpreter present.
A bit closer still we have...
The silence spoken of in this last verse is of a limited kind in that there is nothing in the text to support the notion that a prophet who had given way to another and allowed them to speak could not take up where he had left off when the one allowed to speak had finished saying whatever it was that they had been given to say by God.
This does NOT mean that the silence spoken of by Paul in 1 Cor 14 is also of a limited duration. Only that the contextual evidence so far is inconclusive such that 1 Cor 14 could be of either unlimited or limited silence.
We must keep looking. Let's look at bit after 1 Cor 14:34.
Here we have a clue as to whether the silence commanded by Paul is of a limited or unlimited duration. Notice the choice here. It is between speaking in church or speaking at home. No other option is given. A women can either ask (i.e. speak) at home regarding her wish to know something OR in church but not both. If she speaks in church it is a shame (the NASB uses the word "disgrace"). If she speaks (i.e. asks) at home it is perfectly acceptable.
The duration of silence regarding what she wants to ask about is unlimited for the duration of the assembled meeting.
Silence being the opposite of speaking.
Between the silence commanded of tongues speakers when there is no interpreter (unlimited silence for the duration of the meeting), the silence commanded of a prophet when another receives a revelation while sitting down (presumably limited until the one sitting down has had a chance to express themselves), and the silence commanded of a woman respecting what she wants to ask about (unlimited silence until she gets home at which time she can ask her husband) we have...
Notice that the verse does NOT say "Let your women not cause a disruption: for it is not permitted unto them to cause a disruption...". Rather it says that they are to keep silence and not permitted to speak. Speaking is the function which is addressed and limited. Not disruption.
The shame mentioned in the next verse (1 Cor 14:35) is connected with speaking. Asking about something. To ask (i.e. speak) in church is a disgrace. The shame is not connected with a woman wanting to know something but rather with her asking (i.e. speaking) out her desire to know in church.
The "it is not permitted unto them to speak" of verse 34 and the "for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" are connected around the same function. Namely speaking. For women, it is both not permitted and a shame for them to engage in speaking out in the assembly.
With asking their husbands about something they want to know during an assembly being an example of something they are not permitted to do (i.e. speak) and that is shameful (i.e. speaking out in church).
Paul's reasoning for not allowing a women to speak is that the Law commands women to be under obedience (i.e. under submission).
The following is my personal opinion...take it or leave it as such but as I prayed over these things the Lord seemed to lay the following on my heart respecting the why of why it is important for women to be silent in the assembly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now an obvious question is what is so important about a woman not speaking as an expression of submission (yes...I realize that "an expression of submission" is not in the text but that is what not speaking is. It is an outward expression of acting in line with the submission that the Law requires of a woman).
Submission implies authority. That the one submitting is submitting to a higher authority. The authority is implied meaning that it is not directly pointed out as an entity in itself but rather that it is pointed to by the act of submission. One does not submit unless one is under authority. The authority is there just not overtly and clearly seen other than through an act of submission - such as being silent.
It is interesting to note that 1 Cor 11 talks of a symbol of authority on the head of a woman. I believe that symbol is more appropriately a symbol of submission. Of being under authority since the context of the head covering instructions in 1 Cor 11 talk of the authority structure within the church (namely from Jesus Christ through the man to the woman).
Just as the head covering is a symbol of submission so too the silence commanded of women during an assembly of the church is an expression of submission. All pointing to the authority that is God operating within the assembly.
Without the symbol of submission and without the expression of submission one cannot readily see submission at all! One can talk about it all day but the symbol and expression are the outworking of submission in practice for all to see. And that submission on the part of the women points to God as the ultimate authority operating through the men in the assembly.
The whole (both men and women within their respective roles) pointing to and giving glory to God!
Silence on the part of the women is a beautiful thing. Not designed to suppress women at all (given that they can speak all they want to outside the assembly) but rather to allow them to participate (alongside the men) in giving glory to the Lord of all authority through the assembly!
Carlos
Well...I am not going to get into a debate with you about whether biblical textual criticism is valid, whether or not so and so percentage of bible scholars engaged in it to determine what to put in our bible's, the significance of the footnotes about variant readings that are in our bible's and so forth since this thread is about what Paul said about women being silent.
That kind of discussion would lead us nowhere.
Let me just say this and I will leave it at that...
You say that any reconstruction of the original text is based on "theory, conjecture and assumptions." which implies that the bible is a bunch of religious nonsense based on little more than hot air.
Assumptions are not truth.
Conjectures are not truth.
Theories are not facts.
By the standard you seem to think the bible is based on...what it says may or may not be true, may or may not be worth basing our lives on, may or may not point us to God, or may or may not be the Word of God for us today.
I believe God as a Supreme Being inspired what we have today in our bible's. I believe it can be counted on to be authentic to what the original authors intended to say.
I don't believe for one minute it's as based on assumptions, conjectures, and theories as you say it is. I know for a fact (based on what I have read many of them to say) that many biblical scholars would disagree with you strongly about that characterization.
Not the least of which is that much of the authenticity of our present day bible's is attested to by a vast quantity of manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts that point us to the original text.
FF Bruce, a well respected biblical scholar (since deceased) is purported to have said this before he even became a Christian!
I do not have a source for that quotation but I remember reading his book, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable and he said something akin to that if not that exact thing in the book.
The quote is available all over the place on various Christian websites.
Anyway that's all I will say about this as I want to get back to talking about what Paul said so if I don't respond to further comments you make about this...that's why.
Carlos
Church isn't an excuse to treat others - especially women - any differently than we treat them every other day of the week.
If you want to see what your kind of church would look like, Carlos, go visit a Mosque.2
Not quite. The church that I would like to see is described quite well within the pages of our bible's!
Carlos
Carlos, did you notice the "IF" conditionals that Paul used?
if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence ...
if any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let (*) the first hold his peace (*)...
if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home...
All of those conditions are situational. Emphasis on the duration while not examining the full situation may give rise to misunderstanding.
Earlier in the thread, I asked about 2 Thess chapter 3. The Greek word isn't the same but the concepts are. Brothers who did not work should not eat. Also, they should hold their peace (be silent) and not be busybodies. Paul was speaking about disorderly conduct (walking disorderly) and also spoke about traditional teachings.
...withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us (v6).
... working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread (v. 11-12).
Note that the word used in 2Th chapter 3 is the same word that is used in 1Tim, chapter 2.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. - (1Ti 2:11-12 KJV)
The example found in 2Thess is yet another condition (situation) that was preached against. Are we to imagine that Paul states the the unemployed brethren should be mute? Or is he saying they should not be busybodies? Reading the bible isn't just a matter of word study, else Webster would be the final authority, right? In fact, if we consider concepts, the two passages found in Corinthians and Thessalonians are very similar.
Your thoughts?
if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence ...
if any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let (*) the first hold his peace (*)...
if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home...
All of those conditions are situational. Emphasis on the duration while not examining the full situation may give rise to misunderstanding.
Earlier in the thread, I asked about 2 Thess chapter 3. The Greek word isn't the same but the concepts are. Brothers who did not work should not eat. Also, they should hold their peace (be silent) and not be busybodies. Paul was speaking about disorderly conduct (walking disorderly) and also spoke about traditional teachings.
...withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us (v6).
... working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread (v. 11-12).
Note that the word used in 2Th chapter 3 is the same word that is used in 1Tim, chapter 2.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. - (1Ti 2:11-12 KJV)
The example found in 2Thess is yet another condition (situation) that was preached against. Are we to imagine that Paul states the the unemployed brethren should be mute? Or is he saying they should not be busybodies? Reading the bible isn't just a matter of word study, else Webster would be the final authority, right? In fact, if we consider concepts, the two passages found in Corinthians and Thessalonians are very similar.
Your thoughts?
Last edited by a moderator:
woodlandapple
Member
sigh. well, yes actually you can.
This passage indicates that the law is refering to the fact that women are not allowed to speak - this is as the use of commas suggest. Because in English you never seperate a subject with its verb by only one comma. So, show me; where in the Law does it say for women to be silent?
Last edited by a moderator:
WoodandApple, thanks for the reply: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41297&p=626722&viewfull=1#post626722
and your discussion on the synonyms by Trench.
The word covered by the Trench discourse was 'speak' or λαλέω laleō and used in 1Cor 14:34, "... for it is not permitted unto them to speak"
You've stated this word λαλέω (or laleō)is primarily referencing the act of speaking with no reference to the content - which you've labelled informal speech. Trench made the distinction between a verb that meant what I'd call chatting (just using the tongue to speak about whatever) and contrasted that to what you've termed more formal speech, where the content is the priority.
Paul prohibited the first, which could be called idle chatter. Am I with you in that understanding?
and your discussion on the synonyms by Trench.
The word covered by the Trench discourse was 'speak' or λαλέω laleō and used in 1Cor 14:34, "... for it is not permitted unto them to speak"
You've stated this word λαλέω (or laleō)is primarily referencing the act of speaking with no reference to the content - which you've labelled informal speech. Trench made the distinction between a verb that meant what I'd call chatting (just using the tongue to speak about whatever) and contrasted that to what you've termed more formal speech, where the content is the priority.
Paul prohibited the first, which could be called idle chatter. Am I with you in that understanding?
woodlandapple
Member
Yes, Paul is prohibiting λαλέω, External evidence and a literal reading supports the notion that Paul is only prohibiting Idle chatter
but I think its a stretch given the internal evidence. Paul doesnt seem to follow this rule exactly, from this word alone the internal evidence suggests that Paul is prohibiting speaking as a whole, and not prescribing to specific content or character of speech. This would mean that Paul is not just prohibiting formal talks, as in prophesying, teaching, questioning etc, and allowing whispers, talking with children, greeting etc, rather Paul is blanketly prohibiting it all.
In other words, Paul in not interested in the specific words that Women use in church, he isnt making allowances, he is condeming all speech and that the content is irrelevant. But realistically evidence points both ways; as they are prone to do.
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul had just got done addressing prophetic utterance in the church. God pours His Spirit out on both men and women. Women (as well as men) are given the gift of prophecy. Women (as well as men) are given the gift of tongues and women (as well as men) are given the gift of interpretation.
Paul blames those who think too highly of themselves for the confusion they introduced into the assembly, by pretentious or conspicuous show of their gifts (v. 26): When you come together every one hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation etc.; that is, "While one has a psalm to utter by inspiration, another has a doctrine, or revelation;’’ or else, "Many of you having psalms or doctrines or use of spiritual gifts to propose at the same time, without holding your peace for one another. Is not this perfect uproar? Can this be edifying? And yet all religious exercises in public assemblies should have this view: Let all things be done to edifying.’’
We don't gather to be entertained or to showcase our spirituality. We gather for edification, for the spiritual building up that we need to be able to live our lives for Jesus Christ outside of the walls of the church. As Paul said in Eph 4:12, the goal is the equipping of the saints for the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Our Christian lives are to be lived on the outside, and we come together to be strengthened and equipped and built up when we all come together as a church family.
I can't take what Paul is saying here to mean that women should be utterly silent in the church because he had just instructed that women should pray and prophesy if their head were covered (indicating submission). One way of looking at it within context is that he is talking about speaking in the sense of judging prophecy. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. ... For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. - (1Cr 14:29, 33 KJV). Then comes the admonishment that women are to be silent. He goes on to say, if they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home (Wescott and Hort: "if but something to be learning they are willing, in house the own, male persons let them be questioning").
Remember too, the Corinthians came from pagan, gentile cultures. They did not come from the Jewish synagogue. They came from the more rowdy temple where it was more like a party. Because Paul had already addressed the right of women to prophecy and pray (outloud) when properly attired ( indicating submission for the sake of the angels) the context of the admonition here refers to either the judging of prophecy or disruptive speaking. So then we could take this to mean that during a gathering of women, where the gift of prophecy was in operation, then yes, those women who are prophets should judge. But in the general assembly, they are to remain quiet.
I have had experience in a church that was structured after the concepts taught by Paul here in Corinthians. They did have pastors and elders and teachers but the services were not performed solely by them but instead each member would be allowed to minister as the Spirit moved. The Gift of tongues was not encouraged, but it was not prohibited either as long as it was accompanied by interpretation. Prophecy was encouraged but moreso the principle of edification and "giving way" to others so that the Holy Spirit was more so the driving force than the sermon that the pastor prepared or even the inspired revelation that was given to a member of the body. When we came together to worship, not everyone had a song or psalm, not everyone had a doctrine, not everyone had a tongue or revelation. All things were done in order. There were all these things but each in its own time. I can not recall a time when the Gift of prophecy was 'interrupted', when one person's speech was held quiet in order to allow another person to give their prophecy so the Scripture, "If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted, was not enforced because there was no need.
In that assembly, the head covering doctrine was held to mean long hair vs. short so men had short hair and women kept their hair length to shoulder length or below. Somehow we got the idea that "long" meant covering the neck. I dunno.
In order to arrive at the position that demands absolute silence of women when saints assemble to worship, one must relegate the instruction about head-covering to public places or homes. This is not clearly delineated nor demanded in Scripture. And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
When Peter quoted Joel on the day of Pentecost, he had just been baptized in the Holy Spirit. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit (given to the body of Christ) including tongues and prophecy were still being understood when Peter declared, "This is that!" meaning that what was being seen was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit that had been prophesied of in earlier times. In other NT Scripture, Peter warns that many try to twist what Paul has written and that we should use care in order to avoid that possibility. I personally think that this is the case here.
Paul blames those who think too highly of themselves for the confusion they introduced into the assembly, by pretentious or conspicuous show of their gifts (v. 26): When you come together every one hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation etc.; that is, "While one has a psalm to utter by inspiration, another has a doctrine, or revelation;’’ or else, "Many of you having psalms or doctrines or use of spiritual gifts to propose at the same time, without holding your peace for one another. Is not this perfect uproar? Can this be edifying? And yet all religious exercises in public assemblies should have this view: Let all things be done to edifying.’’
We don't gather to be entertained or to showcase our spirituality. We gather for edification, for the spiritual building up that we need to be able to live our lives for Jesus Christ outside of the walls of the church. As Paul said in Eph 4:12, the goal is the equipping of the saints for the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Our Christian lives are to be lived on the outside, and we come together to be strengthened and equipped and built up when we all come together as a church family.
I can't take what Paul is saying here to mean that women should be utterly silent in the church because he had just instructed that women should pray and prophesy if their head were covered (indicating submission). One way of looking at it within context is that he is talking about speaking in the sense of judging prophecy. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. ... For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. - (1Cr 14:29, 33 KJV). Then comes the admonishment that women are to be silent. He goes on to say, if they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home (Wescott and Hort: "if but something to be learning they are willing, in house the own, male persons let them be questioning").
Remember too, the Corinthians came from pagan, gentile cultures. They did not come from the Jewish synagogue. They came from the more rowdy temple where it was more like a party. Because Paul had already addressed the right of women to prophecy and pray (outloud) when properly attired ( indicating submission for the sake of the angels) the context of the admonition here refers to either the judging of prophecy or disruptive speaking. So then we could take this to mean that during a gathering of women, where the gift of prophecy was in operation, then yes, those women who are prophets should judge. But in the general assembly, they are to remain quiet.
I have had experience in a church that was structured after the concepts taught by Paul here in Corinthians. They did have pastors and elders and teachers but the services were not performed solely by them but instead each member would be allowed to minister as the Spirit moved. The Gift of tongues was not encouraged, but it was not prohibited either as long as it was accompanied by interpretation. Prophecy was encouraged but moreso the principle of edification and "giving way" to others so that the Holy Spirit was more so the driving force than the sermon that the pastor prepared or even the inspired revelation that was given to a member of the body. When we came together to worship, not everyone had a song or psalm, not everyone had a doctrine, not everyone had a tongue or revelation. All things were done in order. There were all these things but each in its own time. I can not recall a time when the Gift of prophecy was 'interrupted', when one person's speech was held quiet in order to allow another person to give their prophecy so the Scripture, "If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted, was not enforced because there was no need.
In that assembly, the head covering doctrine was held to mean long hair vs. short so men had short hair and women kept their hair length to shoulder length or below. Somehow we got the idea that "long" meant covering the neck. I dunno.
In order to arrive at the position that demands absolute silence of women when saints assemble to worship, one must relegate the instruction about head-covering to public places or homes. This is not clearly delineated nor demanded in Scripture. And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
When Peter quoted Joel on the day of Pentecost, he had just been baptized in the Holy Spirit. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit (given to the body of Christ) including tongues and prophecy were still being understood when Peter declared, "This is that!" meaning that what was being seen was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit that had been prophesied of in earlier times. In other NT Scripture, Peter warns that many try to twist what Paul has written and that we should use care in order to avoid that possibility. I personally think that this is the case here.
Last edited by a moderator: