Women are to be silent when the Church assembles!

[Sparkey]

WHERE is the Biblical authority for the woman to speak in the assembly???? No one has found that yet.

Where is the biblical authority for the unemployed to speak (or eat, for that matter)?

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41297&p=624932&viewfull=1#post624932

Whats the relation of that to this thread? As usual those who have no scripture to support their assumptions resort to such, even supposing a wedding assembly is the same as the worship assembly.

Once again: Paul said he taught the same thing in all the churches. That takes his inspired writing beyond the Corinthian church. Give one scripture where the woman was given authority to speak in the worship---just ONE for God has to say something only ONE time to make it true.

Have you tried to work the admonishment found 2 Thes, chapter 3 into your doctrine? It is a command that emphasizes what Handy has already pointed out. Isolated Scripture can be better understood when taken with the whole Word. The issue was the same: Disorderly conduct.

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count [him] not as an enemy, but admonish [him] as a brother. Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord [be] with you all. - (2Th 3:6-16 KJV)

This word, 'quietness' is the same "silence" that was used in other places, including where it is found used in 1 Timothy directed toward women (this time) and translated "silence", "But I suffer not a woman to teach , nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence [quietness]."

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Thats what I've been pressing for, WHERE is the Biblical authority for the woman to speak in the assembly????

...WITH AUTHORITY.

It isn't about what they're saying, or where they're saying it as much as it's about HOW and WHY they're saying it. This is clear from vs. 36:

"...God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 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. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?" (1 Cor. 14:34-36 NASB)

The prohibition is not against speaking. It's against speaking authoritatively. Verse 36 suggests that they were contending with authority by expressing their own supposedly authoritative arguments in the assembly and disturbing the order of things...not just in the assembly itself, but in the order of authoritative headship, too.


And if you are still unsure that quiet, uncontentious, authoritatively submissive learning is the issue...

11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 3:11 NASB)

 

[Webb]

Reba---Was the Lord's supper in the assembly under question? Is the Lord's supper in the worship?

 

[reba]

Originally Posted by Webb
Whats the relation of that to this thread? As usual those who have no scripture to support their assumptions resort to such, even supposing a wedding assembly is the same as the worship assembly.

Once again: Paul said he taught the same thing in all the churches. That takes his inspired writing beyond the Corinthian church. Give one scripture where the woman was given authority to speak in the worship---just ONE for God has to say something only ONE time to make it true.

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.
Does Paul use the word worship? How does one hold to the word silence and change churches to worship?

One again
2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
how is the changing justified

 

[Webb]

Jethro wrote: ''THE PROHIBITION IS NOT AGAINST SPEAKING. ITS AGAINST SPEAKING AUTHORITATIVELY."

In the 1st place why would anyone not speak with authority? Did not Peter ( who also was inspired ) say "if any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God"?

The KJV reads its a "shame" for the woman to speak in church. The NASB uses "improper". I would think if something is a shame its improper and if something is improper its a shame. With or without authority its a "shame", "improper" for the woman to speak in church. Why can't we take inspirations word for it?

 

[reba]

Reba---Was the Lord's supper in the assembly under question? Is the Lord's supper in the worship?

I dont understand how this fits with the question asked of you...
You have said this below..

I did not assume, Paul says it. Since he taught the same in all the churches all the churches are given the same injunction. AND IF NOT WHY NOT?

So i will ask again how do you justify changing the word churches to worship.

 

[reba]

Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,


The Lords "Last Supper" at some ones home. As was customary for the feast of the Passover.

this is an answer to Webb's question ,off topic i will not respond farther in this thread...

 

[Webb]

Is the Lord's supper in the worship or not??? What does Acts 20:7 mean when it says "upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread Paul preached to them"??? The Corinthians were abusing the Lord's supper, what did Paul mean when he wrote to them " when you come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." The point of meeting together in one place was to eat the Lord's supper, yet because of their abuse of it they were not not partaking in a proper manner. The Lord's supper is in the worship assembly.

 

[reba]

off topic i will not respond farther in this thread...

When one refuses to answer they throw out a strawman...

What is the justification for changing the word of God from church to worship?

 

[Webb]

Reba, when the church assenbles into one place, WHAT is that assembly for? Is it to play bridge? Play 42? Have a birthday party? A wedding? In I Cor.14:23 and I Cor.11:20 when the church is said to "come together into one place" I believe its for the worship assembly. What else was it for??? Why do you meet on Sunday with your church for??? Again, I ask to play or worship? I say it was to worship. The Lord's supper was observed in a worship assembly. Answer Acts 20:7, why did the apostle Paul tarry so he could meet with the disciples on the 1st day of the week? It was because the brethren would be partaking of the Lord's supper.

The devil is always handy to give us multitudes of excuses for not doing what the Lord has told us to do. He said it is a "shame", "improper" for a woman to speak in church. Whats so hard about that to understand?

 

[carlos123]

No. Do you understand how the spiritual gifts work? Where do the prophecy words come from? When you figure that out you'll know who ask me to ask you.

Do you believe that women can receive other spiritual gifts like discerning spirits and what is your understanding of discernment?

Are you married?

Well...the prophetic words come from God as in He is the one that inspires whoever is a prophet to speak what they say.

If you mean by that, that the Lord asked you to ask me that...that's fine. I don't know why you seem to feel a need to be secrative about that. If God told you to ask me that then come out and say so.

Regarding whether women can receive other spiritual gifts such as discernment...don't know what you are getting at exactly but yes, I believe they can. There is no reason to believe that they can't.

If you mean by that, that you have a gift of discernment and that therefore that means that you know what you are talking about regarding this issue (apart from anything that may be written) I would counter with the statement of Paul where he said...

1 Cor 14:37 (NASB)

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. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

No gift overrides what is written Justice.

The Corinthians undoubtedly had the gift of discernment among them somewhere. Yet such a gift did not prevent them from going astray in their understanding of how God wanted them to act.

As to the question of whether I am married or not...such a question is superflous for understanding what Paul said in the text. As such I must respectfully ignore it to focus on that which we are discussing without going off into a tangent of what my married state has to do with what Paul said (unless of course you can show me how my married state has anything to do with a proper understanding of what Paul said...in which case I will gladly divulge my state of marriage or not).

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

By this statement, you seem to suggest that every church today is experiencing the same problems the Corinthian church was. Is it your intent to impugn all of Christendom?

If so, on what grounds do you claim a letter written to a church some 2,000 years ago to address specific problems applies to every church today?

If not, why fix what isn't broken?

If it hasn't already been stated so clearly, allow me to be the first: I don't like your theology.

That you don't like my theology is a given Stormcrow. But if I may say so...your personal like or dislike for my theology is irrelevant for purposes of understanding what Paul said.

We ought to be focusing on properly understanding what Paul said in the text instead of bantering back and forth about personal assumptions, conjectures, ideas, likes and dislikes, and what have you.

Is it my intent to impugn all Christendom? No.

My intent is to understand what Paul said in 1 Cor 14 about women being silent in the church assembly. If that impugn's all Christendom regarding present day practice then that is God impugning said Christendom.

I am not the one who inspired Paul to write what he did. God did.

The underlying assumption under your question seems to be that my interpretation could not possibly be correct because if it is...why all Christendom would be impugned and since such a thing is preposterous...my interpretation could not possibly be correct.

A more correct approach, at least one that will more readily arrive at truth and God's heart on the matter, is to ask ourselves what the text says. Let the impugning fall where it may.

It is a known fact of church history that the majority of folks who profess to be Christian are usually on the side of the wrong and not readily on the side of the right respecting the things of God.

Starting with Jesus, indeed going back even before through the prophets of the Old Testament, religious folks are always resisting God and His Spirit.

It was that way then and still is to this day.

So again...whether the church is impugned or not is irrelevant to grasping what Paul said.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

Let's cut to the chase and call your interpretation of Paul's letter what it is:

The "Sit down and shut up, woman!" doctrine. Or we could call it, the "Women should be seen and not heard in church" doctrine.

I'm still trying to figure out how a letter written to address a problem in a church 2,000 years ago should become the legal and doctrinal basis for the treatment of women in every church of all time everywhere. 2

Is it any wonder such beliefs today cause the church to be a laughingstock?

Except that the "Sit down and shut up, woman!" and "Women should be seen and not heard in church" doctrine, as you put it misses the mark.

The women having to be silent in a church setting is God's doctrine. As such it is straight from the heart of a loving Father who wants what is best for His children. It does not demean women. It does not put them down. It does not rob them of dignity. It does not imply or make them inferior to men in the preciousness of who they are to God their Father.

The concept of "Sit down and shut up, woman!" is a most demeaning twist on the purposes of God's heart for women in the church. It does not acknowledge the good that they have to give the church. It implies an overbearing authority who won't let them talk just because. It makes women out to be some sort of object that can be pushed around for the convenience of men who feel superior to them.

And as such it does not reflect the heart of God at all.

If you want to think that such is what I am proposing you are very sorely mistaken.

If you want to think that such is what God inspired Paul to write you are even more sorely mistaken.

I could care less whether the Church is made out to be laughingstock by what God says to do by the way. The very Gospel that we supposedly believe and yield to God through is foolishness to Gentiles.

So does that make the Gospel something that we should as readily drop as readily as the idea that women should be silent in a church assembly? I dare say not.

The laughingstockness index of a doctrine (i.e. how readily a given doctrine will cause Christians to be laughed at) is irrelevant to properly determining what the Word says.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

Why did Carlos have to reinterpret (restate) Handy's response before he could answer it?
Did she really say that prophecy was outlawed outside of churches? I missed that part.

Read her previous response to me SparrowHawke.

Her contention was that the instructions about wearing a head covering where intended to be applied within the context of a church assembly. And given that women can indeed prophecy (albeit with a head covering) that Paul's statement about women being silent could not possibly be intended to be that, well...that women ought to be silent in the church assembly.

That was her objection (among others) to the idea that women ought to be silent in the church assembly.

Which I countered by saying that prophecy was not something that could be exercised only in a church assembly and that the instructions giving women the option to prophesy with a head covering did not in fact contradict what Paul said about being silent at all.

Carlos

 

[Sparkey]

So you can't show me where handy said that prophecy was outlawed outside of church asemblies? Absent a direct quote, I think I'll wait for her reply then. You understand. Have you considered the rest of my post about 2Th 3:6-16? It does appear to be dealing with the same issue, "Disorderly Conduct" and does contain the same message in essence: "quietness and/or silence" - but this time the gender we find is male, not female. There is also multiple mention in thread with the 1 Timothy quote, directed toward women (this time) and translated "silence", "But I suffer not a woman to teach , nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence [quietness]."

How does that fit into your doctrine, please?

 

[carlos123]

Even assuming that's true, how do you make the leap from Paul addressing a particular problem in Corinth to making it the legal and doctrinal basis for the treatment of women in every church everywhere today???

On what grounds do you tell anyone, especially women, to "sit down and shut up" when what he addressed then isn't a problem today?!?

You assume that whatever problems Paul addressed in the Church at Corinth cannot possibly be applicable today.

You assume that the problem Paul was addressing was one of women being disruptive of church meetings and that since women are no longer disruptive that Paul's instructions to be silent are irrelevant.

Assumptions do not for proper and correct biblical interpretation make.

You miss entirely the connection between being silent and submission. That to be silent is an expression of submission on the part of women. That a woman (as Paul said in 1 Timothy 2:11) should quietly receive instruction with complete submissiveness. A submission that was not only required of women then but is also required of women today.

You disconnect silence from submission and assume that the silence was thus only for first century, obnoxious, uneducated, dullards of women who were all over the place and disrupting of the church.

Again assumptions do not for correct biblical interpretation make.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

So you can't show me where handy said that prophecy was outlawed outside of church asemblies? Absent a direct quote, I think I'll wait for her reply then.

You may be waiting a long time as I think Handy (i.e. Dora) has bowed out of this thread.

What she said was this...

Carlos said: The context before the 1 Cor 11 instructions about coverings is a private home.

I disagree for several reasons here. One, whereas verse one may very well continue the context of Chapter 10, Paul makes a clear transition in verse 2 as I've already shown above.

Two, because prophesy is, very specifically, a gift for the edification of the church.

I took that to mean that her contention was that prophecy could only happen in an assembly of the church since it was very specifically for the edification of the church.

The quote is from her post at http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41297&p=624900&viewfull=1#post624900

Or post #170.

You understand. Have you considered the rest of my post about 2Th 3:6-16? It does appear to be dealing with the same issue, "Disorderly Conduct" and does contain the same message in essence: "quietness and/or silence" - but this time the gender we find is male, not female. There is also multiple mention in thread with the 1 Timothy quote, directed toward women (this time) and translated "silence", "But I suffer not a woman to teach , nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence [quietness]."

How does that fit into your doctrine, please?

I will happinly respond to your question SparrowHawke but can you do me a favor and restate what you are asking me about in brief? I want to make sure I understand your position before I go responding.

Thanks.

Carlos

 

[handy]

I've kind of dropped out of this discussion because I've pretty much exhausted my thoughts on it and have moved on to other topics.

However, I did see my name show up on the newsfeed, so thought I'd check it out.

For clarity...nowhere have I stated that I thought prophesy could only be exercised within church assemblies...

Prophesy can take place pretty much anywhere, but it's primary intent is for the edification of the church. My main disagree with Carlos regarding this was when Carlos stated that the instructions for a woman to cover her head while praying or prophesying was to be taken in the context of Chapter 10 and assumed that the instruction applied to women at home.

This doesn't fall in with the simple reading of the passage in question where Paul clearly transitions from speaking of serving things sacrificed to idols to the assemblies. I've made my position regarding why I think it's clear that Paul's instruction for women to cover their heads while praying and prophesying is within the context of church assemblies pretty clear now. I've summed it up in posts #136 & #170 for anyone who is still unclear.

Unless folks want the Bible to read something like this:

"Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. (Now I'm going to interrupt myself and speak about something totally different) But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better, but for the worse."

The fact that those gifted with prophesy can exercise that gift outside of the assemblies doesn't negate the fact that Paul was addressing the exercise of the gift by women in the assemblies in Chapter 11. Just as people speaking in tongues can speak in tongues just about anywhere, but Paul was addressing it's use in the assemblies...he was instructing the church about their behavior in the assemblies from Chapter 11 onward.


Hope this clears up any misconceptions about my position... :waving

 

[Sparkey]

Thanks, Handy. I thought I understood you but didn't want to put words in your mouth (even in your defense).

I will happinly respond to your question SparrowHawke but can you do me a favor and restate what you are asking me about in brief? I want to make sure I understand your position before I go responding.

Thanks.

Carlos

Okay, do you think that there is danger of misunderstanding when a single quote is used to establish a doctrine, or do you believe that the whole bible and every discussion of the subject and related subjects should rather be prayfully considered first?

In anticipation of your wisdom in the response about general principles of biblical study and proper hermeneutics, I would like to point to 2Thess 3 and 1Tim 1:11 and draw your attention to the fact that these two scriptures hold several things in common with the 1Cor injunction.

 

[reba]

Thank you for answering.

The devil is always handy to give us multitudes of excuses for not doing what the Lord has told us to do. He said it is a "shame", "improper" for a woman to speak in church. Whats so hard about that to understand?

What is church?

What does speak mean?

As in a speaker or chit chat?