Women are to be silent when the Church assembles!

[carlos123]

Carlos, what about women with no husbands ?

What kind of assumption will you draw since Paul specifically only mentions women with husbands ?

Are you going to assume that they must have a father to go home to ask questions ?

I do not interpret the Bible based on assumptions Tina. If I do by all means please point out when I am using what I call assumpegesis to interpret the bible and I will readily concede the point of that assumption.

Regarding your question about single women. An excellent question!

Since Paul referred to the Law as a basis for saying that women ought to be silent in an assembly of the church as an expression of submission it stands to reason that the Old Testament might be an excellent place to give us some clue as to how single women are to conduct themselves in an assembly of the church.

Under the Old Testament single women running around independently was not the norm. Such a thing would have been considered almost immoral more akin to being a prostitute than a right thing to do.

I don't have time to cite verses just now as I absolutely have to run out the door but I share these thoughts for consideration.

A women in the Old Testament was either under a Father or under a husband. Or a widow but even then a woman whose husband died was to be married by the nearest blood relative male and brought under his roof.

As such a woman who had not yet married would have most definitely been under the authority of her father.

It is not an assumption to say that single women would likely have had to be under a father in the New Testament as well for purposes of applying what Paul said.

It is a logical extension of Old Testament practice based on the need of women to be submissive as the law says.

That's just off the top of my head. As I said I have to rush out the door.

Carlos

 

[Tina]

I do not interpret the Bible based on assumptions Tina. If I do by all means please point out when I am using what I call assumpegesis to interpret the bible and I will readily concede the point of that assumption.

Regarding your question about single women. An excellent question!

Since Paul referred to the Law as a basis for saying that women ought to be silent in an assembly of the church as an expression of submission it stands to reason that the Old Testament might be an excellent place to give us some clue as to how single women are to conduct themselves in an assembly of the church.

Under the Old Testament single women running around independently was not the norm. Such a thing would have been considered almost immoral more akin to being a prostitute than a right thing to do.

I don't have time to cite verses just now as I absolutely have to run out the door but I share these thoughts for consideration.

A women in the Old Testament was either under a Father or under a husband. Or a widow but even then a woman whose husband died was to be married by the nearest blood relative male and brought under his roof.

As such a woman who had not yet married would have most definitely been under the authority of her father.

It is not an assumption to say that single women would likely have had to be under a father in the New Testament as well for purposes of applying what Paul said.

It is a logical extension of Old Testament practice based on the need of women to be submissive as the law says.

That's just off the top of my head. As I said I have to rush out the door.

Carlos

Thanks for your assumption on a matter which Paul evidently did not see the need to give even a scant reference ....


Isn't it interesting that Paul succinctly singled out only married women for silence and submission to husbands ... calling them out as "shameful" if they speak in church.

Speaks volume of his emphasis on submission of wives to husbands as that of husbands to Christ.

 

[Webb]

Tina the Greek word is Amer regarding "husband". Thus it may refer to any man and not necessarily the husband. Inspiration has taken care of this point long before anyone thought to bring up your question.

At present I do not have time to enlarge on this. Perhaps Woodlandapple who claims to be a Greek scholar will cue in on this in the meanwhile.

 

[reba]

The more of this thread i read the more i see lack of leadership as the problem in churches.

 

[Tina]

Tina the Greek word is Amer regarding "husband". Thus it may refer to any man and not necessarily the husband.

It's "Aner" not Amer , and it primarily means husband or future husband. If it refers to "any man", Paul would have said so ...

 

[Webb]

Sorry about the mis-spell. You need to do more research on aner.

 

[reba]

A woman in 'church' having to submit to any man? That is no church for me.

 

[reba]

1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
The context clearly put the word Aner as the spouse.

 

[carlos123]

Thanks for your assumption on a matter which Paul evidently did not see the need to give even a scant reference ....

First off Tina I did not assume. I ran with what Paul said to arrive at a biblically sound and plausible extension of what Paul said as it might apply to single women in a church setting.

An assumption is unfounded and just theory that comes out of our own heads and is unsupported, factually and definitively speaking, either from history or the Word.

Paul mentioned the Law did he not (bolded emphasis is mine)?

1 Cor 14:34 NASB

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.

Though there is some difference of belief regarding whether the Law that Paul had in mind was in reference to being silent or being in submission I think it is clear, based on the similarity between the above verse and 1 Timothy 2:11, and for other reasons I have already covered earlier in this thread that what Paul had in mind was the submission the Law required of women.

1 Timothy 2:11 NASB

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Silence in the church was one expression of that submission.

As such it would not have been the only expression of submission for women. Single or married no woman in the Old Testament could lay claim to being able to walk in an independent and rebellious spirit. Ever. They were to be submissive at all times whether to their fathers or husbands or other male authority figures (i.e. King, Judge, Elders).

So it stands to reason that the submission Paul used as a basis for his command that women ought to be silent in a church setting might give us some clue as to how submission ought to be expressed within a church assembly by those women who are single.

That reasoning is what I presented.

Sorry if you think that is an assumption. I call that biblically sound reasoning but if you still think I was assuming we shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

Isn't it interesting that Paul succinctly singled out only married women for silence and submission to husbands ... calling them out as "shameful" if they speak in church.

Let me look into whether there are indeed grounds for believing that the women he gave the command too were ONLY married women. Yes...married women were to ask their husbands at home but what he says about it being shameful for a women to speak in church and otherwise may be applicable to women in general and not just to married women.

I'll post back what I find on that.

An interesting point you brought up Tina!

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

The more of this thread i read the more i see lack of leadership as the problem in churches.

I'll second that Reba! Or perhaps I should say AMEN!

There is a dire need for leaders to stand up and proclaim loudly and clearly what the Word so plainly says as what we need to do. Without excuse.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

It's "Aner" not Amer , and it primarily means husband or future husband. If it refers to "any man", Paul would have said so ...

Just a sidenote of observation if I may.

It is not a matter of what we may or may not think Paul would have said otherwise but rather what he did in fact say.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

A woman in 'church' having to submit to any man? That is no church for me.

I am not sure who you are responding to Reba as I have never said that Paul is advocating that all woman submit to any man anywhere in the church who is...well...a man, regardless of whether any women so submitting is in any kind authority related relationship with that man or not.

Women are never just lose from authority relationships within the church.

Before they grow to adulthood women are under their fathers. Then they usually get married which would place them under the authority of their husbands. If they are adult women and are not married they would come under the authority of church elders (male).

Just as a wife does not bear an obligation to be submissive to any man anywhere in the church like she must be to her husband so too women in general do not have to submit to any Tom, Dick, and Harry who is a man within the church.

However they are to have quiet and gentle spirits and are to have submissive attitudes and perspectives. That would undoubtedly have some bearing on general relationships between men and women in the church but all women do not scripturally have to submit to any man.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

A woman in 'church' having to submit to any man? That is no church for me.

I just thought of something else regarding what you said Reba.

I understand what you are saying and your objection to the idea of women having to submit to any man. I object to that too and have never advocated that.

But...more fundamentally if it could be shown you from the Word that such is what God wanted would you be willing to do it?

That is an important consideration Reba. I mean you don't have to answer that here. I am simply posting that question as something for you to prayerfully consider.

We are called to surrender ourselves to God as God by faith in Jesus. To be reconciled to Him and to enter into a right relationship with God.

To say that so and so is no church for me implies self-will. Where we are not willing to do something even if God were to want it of us. I am not saying that you are self-willed Reba. Only that the way you phrased that implies it.

We can only know God's heart on this matter if we empty ourselves of self-will about this issue and open ourselves up to embracing His will - whatever that is.

Carlos

 

[Tina]

An assumption is unfounded and just theory that comes out of our own heads and is unsupported, factually and definitively speaking, either from history or the Word.

You mean such as the following assumptions you made ...

A gathering of 2 or 3, or any number you please that does not involve everyone in a local church gathering together does not in my understanding of what the text says involve assembling as Paul said.

ASSUMPTION 1 : Even if ONE person is absent, then that gathering is no longer a church assembly, so based on your assumption EVERYONE has to be present in order to make it a “church assemblyâ€.

Well...given that the Word does not make any concession for a particular Christian being out I would say that Jim Smith's absence (whoever he is) makes no difference at all.

Women still need to be silent when the church assembles.

If Jim Smith's absence means the church can't assemble than ladies can speak out all they want. But if the church can and does still assemble without him then no...they cannot speak out.

ASSUMPTION 2 : A church, according to you, is when at least one man is present, otherwise, even a thousand women will not make it a church assembly -- even if all the women did was to worship God, commune bread and wine, prayed and studied scriptures together, during which time, whether you like it or not, they HAVE to speak and say something !



ASSUMPTION 3 : Absolute silence, women are not to utter one word in church.

 

[carlos123]

You mean such as the following assumptions you made ...

As I said Tina we may have to agree to disagree as to my falling into assumptionizing.

But just in case you are open to it...

ASSUMPTION 1 : Even if ONE person is absent, then that gathering is no longer a church assembly, so based on your assumption EVERYONE has to be present in order to make it a “church assemblyâ€.

I have never said such a thing Tina. I mean how can I ever say that if even one person is absent a gathering is no longer a church assembly. That kind of thinking is ridiculous Tina (if I indeed think that). I mean if a person has the flu one day and does not show up that makes the gathering a non-church assembly?

I've never said that Tina. So your assumption of what I never said to be what I believe is...well...I don't know what to call it but it's not an assumption on my part, it's not even something I believe.

ASSUMPTION 2 : A church, according to you, is when at least one man is present, otherwise, even a thousand women will not make it a church assembly -

How can I possibly believe such a thing Tina? I mean really!

That a church is only a church when one man is present and not a church when there isn't?

Do you honestly believe that I hold to such a ridiculous notion as that?

Again that's not assumption on my part...it's not even what I believe.

ASSUMPTION 3 : Absolute silence, women are not to utter one word in church.

Again I have never said that. I do not believe that the silence Paul commanded is such an absolute silence. I believe there are Scriptural grounds for believing it is a silence that involves not speaking out so as to address the whole church or cause the church to notice one's speaking.

But that is not an absolute silence where a woman cannot say one word to anyone at any time during an assembly of the church.

Not an assumption at all. Just a misunderstanding on your part of what I said earlier in this thread...don't know.

I won't respond to any further comments on my supposed assumptionizing unless those comments revolve around potentially real assumptions on my part. Nothing personal Tina but it's not worth discussing possible assumptions on my part when what you have pointed out above aren't even assumptions at all.

Carlos

 

[reba]

But...more fundamentally if it could be shown you from the Word that such is what God wanted would you be willing to do it?

When God revels i listen...

 

[reba]

At age 65 having been raised in churches i have seen what ungodly submission can do to a person, male or female. What it can do to a family.

Godly submission does not happen via force ie: because i said, see it here in the Word! you must do as told etc....

Godly submission happens in the heart of the one submitting.

The male use of scriptural "submitting women" has been a big part in many of the cults.

The abuse of women... LDS, david Kerish, jim jones, come to mind quickly.. person abuse in the discipleship movement of the 70s.

Please note i have not accused Carlos of such.

 

[carlos123]

When God revels i listen...

Outstanding!

Carlos

 

[reba]

Carlos,

I see pretty much what Tina sees in your postings... Might not be what is in head and heart, sure hope not! Could be your verbiage could use some adjustment.

If it is us women you wish to educate you might consider our points.

 

[carlos123]

At age 65 having been raised in churches i have seen what ungodly submission can do to a person, male or female. What it can do to a family.

Godly submission does not happen via force ie: because i said, see it here in the Word! you must do as told etc....

Godly submission happens in the heart of the one submitting.

The male use of scriptural "submitting women" has been a big part in many of the cults.

The abuse of women... LDS, david Kerish, jim jones, come to mind quickly.. person abuse in the discipleship movement of the 70s.

Please note i have not accused Carlos of such.

I also find a lot of the authoritarian demands made by many men over women to be absolutely DISGUSTING! I mean enough to make me just downright angry.

How some men treat women is beyond me to comprehend.

Carlos

PS. Thanks for your note about you not accusing me of such. I appreciate that Reba.