Paul and Women

[His_nee (Jeff)]

that is what Scripture says in many ways and places, and why it is now so much "as in the days of Noah" and also "like sodom and gomorrah" ..... really there is no argument that i can see to show anything otherwise..... this is especially prominent, the truth of the total downfall of all society (except for the elect/ekklesia/set apart ones, throughout the book of REVELATION)

shalom to all who love truth and life in ABBA by grace and faith in Yeshua forever seeking Him !

 

[By Grace]

Why did Paul say this?:

[33] As in all the churches of the saints,
[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
[35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
[36] What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached? 1 Cor 14:33b-36 RSV

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!


Whenever ANY text is "orphaned" meaning ripped from its context, the result is ALWAYS a pretext. That word "pretext means an excuse to "create a doctrine" that is not intended in the original text. I cannot judge the inte3nts of your heart, but I am able to state that it appears to me that you are attempting to make the case where there are no female teachers in the church, would that be correct? If I am not correct, then please state you intentions differently, OK?

1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue (1) edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth (2) edifieth the church
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive (3 )edifying.
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the (4) edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto (5) edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.


33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
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.
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.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order
​

What is the most common word in this passage? (hint 5 times) Therefore the primary purpose of the passage is the edification of the fellow believers in the church worship services. Are you able to see that is a true statement?

Take a look at the manner (liturgy) of the early churches. Instead of happening an orderly worship such as they did at the Synagogues, there was chaos. Look at verse 26, then see all the other things that are the same blue hue. We might go so far as to call it carnal because there were all sorts of things going on seemingly simultaneously, and it was really hard to worship due the din of the cacophony. That is NOT an argument from silence, but it is simply stating that Paul would not have mentioned it in his letter to the Corinthians if such goings-on were not a common happening there.

Notice how important the last verse in the chapter is .40 Let all things be done decently and in order This is a wrap-up of the entire chapter.

Before I go, I want you to notice the stuff I made bold red above. Based upon BOTH of those verses, 28 and 34, it is my opinion that it is impossible to insist on a "Bible doctrine" that does not want women to speak or teach in the church because both men and women are addressed with the same words: keep silence in the churches.

Please do not forget that there must have been chaos in the Corinthian church's worship service. Because that is true, EVERYTHING needs to be taken from the view that the purpose of the church worship service is to edify Jesus Christ.

So I ask you if you see how important the context of a verse is ? You MAY not be advocating the "silent women" doctrine, but you need to know that those verses are a common "justification" for the "silent women doctrine". Unfortunately for those believing it, the position is NOT posted anywhere in the Bible.

You may also want to look at the role of NT women, such Priscilla, and her husband, Dorcas, Joanna, Mary & Martha top see what they did. You see EACH of them taught others, and NONE of them are condemned for not being a :silent woman" as sime want to misinterpret the Bible for a pseudo justification for misogyny.

 

[turnorburn]

elijah23 said:

Why did Paul say this?:

[33] As in all the churches of the saints,
[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
[35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
[36] What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached? 1 Cor 14:33b-36 RSV

Paul probably walked in to a church meeting observed the situation thought about it for a minute then asked the Lord how to deal with it that was his answer..

tob

 

[Vaccine]

...Before I go, I want you to notice the stuff I made bold red above. Based upon BOTH of those verses, 28 and 34, it is my opinion that it is impossible to insist on a "Bible doctrine" that does not want women to speak or teach in the church because both men and women are addressed with the same words: keep silence in the churches.. ...

Thanks for that explanation. You make a very strong case. Well done.

 

[agua.]

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!


Whenever ANY text is "orphaned" meaning ripped from its context, the result is ALWAYS a pretext. That word "pretext means an excuse to "create a doctrine" that is not intended in the original text. I cannot judge the inte3nts of your heart, but I am able to state that it appears to me that you are attempting to make the case where there are no female teachers in the church, would that be correct? If I am not correct, then please state you intentions differently, OK?

1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue (1) edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth (2) edifieth the church
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive (3 )edifying.
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the (4) edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto (5) edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.


33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
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.
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.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order
​

What is the most common word in this passage? (hint 5 times) Therefore the primary purpose of the passage is the edification of the fellow believers in the church worship services. Are you able to see that is a true statement?

Take a look at the manner (liturgy) of the early churches. Instead of happening an orderly worship such as they did at the Synagogues, there was chaos. Look at verse 26, then see all the other things that are the same blue hue. We might go so far as to call it carnal because there were all sorts of things going on seemingly simultaneously, and it was really hard to worship due the din of the cacophony. That is NOT an argument from silence, but it is simply stating that Paul would not have mentioned it in his letter to the Corinthians if such goings-on were not a common happening there.

Notice how important the last verse in the chapter is .40 Let all things be done decently and in order This is a wrap-up of the entire chapter.

Before I go, I want you to notice the stuff I made bold red above. Based upon BOTH of those verses, 28 and 34, it is my opinion that it is impossible to insist on a "Bible doctrine" that does not want women to speak or teach in the church because both men and women are addressed with the same words: keep silence in the churches.

Please do not forget that there must have been chaos in the Corinthian church's worship service. Because that is true, EVERYTHING needs to be taken from the view that the purpose of the church worship service is to edify Jesus Christ.

So I ask you if you see how important the context of a verse is ? You MAY not be advocating the "silent women" doctrine, but you need to know that those verses are a common "justification" for the "silent women doctrine". Unfortunately for those believing it, the position is NOT posted anywhere in the Bible.

You may also want to look at the role of NT women, such Priscilla, and her husband, Dorcas, Joanna, Mary & Martha top see what they did. You see EACH of them taught others, and NONE of them are condemned for not being a :silent woman" as sime want to misinterpret the Bible for a pseudo justification for misogyny.

Before I go, I want you to notice the stuff I made bold red above. Based upon BOTH of those verses, 28 and 34, it is my opinion that it is impossible to insist on a "Bible doctrine" that does not want women to speak or teach in the church because both men and women are addressed with the same words: keep silence in the churches.

Gday By Grace how's it going. It's interesting that the silence concerning men in the church was regarding unfettered tongue speaking do you suggest this is also the context for women? That is are you saying both instructions of silence are about tongue speaking only ?

1Co 14:27-28 KJV If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. (28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

1Co 14:34-35 KJV 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. (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.

It's a very interesting passage in light of 1Cor 11.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

how about 'context' as in Jewish Orthodox Scripture ? > for myself, almost all of Scripture when read in Hebrew is much cleaner, simpler and plainly understood. (while like Jewish life and country and people, not often accepted but in direct conflict with the countries around them).

(this may be for another thread, as it is not just about being silent, but includes being silent for perspective)

from biblegateway.com >>
Kehillah in Corinth I 14:34-35

Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

34 Let the nashim in the kehillot be silent, for it is not permitted for them to blurt out, but let them become submissive, as it says in the Torah (BERESHIS 3:16).

35 And if the nashim wish to inquire about something, let them inquire of their own be’alim b’bayis, for it is a bushah (shame) for an isha to blurt out in the kehillah (BERESHIS 3:2).

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Gday By Grace how's it going. It's interesting that the silence concerning men in the church was regarding unfettered tongue speaking do you suggest this is also the context for women? That is are you saying both instructions of silence are about tongue speaking only ?

1Co 14:27-28 KJV If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. (28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

1Co 14:34-35 KJV 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. (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.

It's a very interesting passage in light of 1Cor 11.

This comparison does not hold as I will show.

Notice in v.28 it tells men to keep silent regarding speaking in tongues on the condition of there being no interpreter. In vs.34-35 it tells women to keep silent in general, not just regarding spiritual gifts. This is demonstrated by the fact that it said that they are not permitted to even ask a question, because that would be shameful. Rather to wait until they get home and ask their husband, and to be in submission as the law instructs.

If this passage is actually accepted, and not regarded as an interpolation then you have a really disgusting teaching here. That in no church should any women ever speak at all, as it says "As in all the churches of the saints." We also would have Paul instructing women to be obedient, because the law tells them to when Christians are no longer under the law, as he so emphatically has taught.

As I pointed out earlier, this text has NO flow with the context and in the manuscripts is often missing or placed elsewhere, which to me indicates that this was a textual addition early on that was used to subjugate women.

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order. 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 (ESV) [Without 33b-35]

The bit of text totally throws of Paul's thought, and uses words that Paul no where else uses.

Such as the following, only being found here:
σιγάτωσαν
ἐπιτρέπεται
ὑποτασσέσθωσαν
ἐπερωτάτωσαν

I think it was made to look like Paul in some ways, but by removing the text and reading it without and then looking at the overall words he uses, one can easily see that this doesn't belong. Also, the application of this doctrine would be so terrible I cannot even fathom.

 

[agua.]

This comparison does not hold as I will show.

Notice in v.28 it tells men to keep silent regarding speaking in tongues on the condition of there being no interpreter. In vs.34-35 it tells women to keep silent in general, not just regarding spiritual gifts. This is demonstrated by the fact that it said that they are not permitted to even ask a question, because that would be shameful. Rather to wait until they get home and ask their husband, and to be in submission as the law instructs.

If this passage is actually accepted, and not regarded as an interpolation then you have a really disgusting teaching here. That in no church should any women ever speak at all, as it says "As in all the churches of the saints." We also would have Paul instructing women to be obedient, because the law tells them to when Christians are no longer under the law, as he so emphatically has taught.

As I pointed out earlier, this text has NO flow with the context and in the manuscripts is often missing or placed elsewhere, which to me indicates that this was a textual addition early on that was used to subjugate women.

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order. 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 (ESV) [Without 33b-35]

The bit of text totally throws of Paul's thought, and uses words that Paul no where else uses.

Such as the following, only being found here:
σιγάτωσαν
ἐπιτρέπεται
ὑποτασσέσθωσαν
ἐπερωτάτωσαν

I think it was made to look like Paul in some ways, but by removing the text and reading it without and then looking at the overall words he uses, one can easily see that this doesn't belong. Also, the application of this doctrine would be so terrible I cannot even fathom.

Interesting Doulos Iesou. I'd be wary of using what makes us squeamish as a barometer though mate.

I agree sometimes in the Bible we see some sections which seem out of place and added to support a preference so I'm not arguing against that concept. I do think it's a difficult position to hold though because it opens a very large can of worms. Also there are some people , as you know, that totally reject Paul's teachings because of similar complaints.

Concerning the 1Corinthians 14 passage have you noticed the nuance of married women which has a significance we don't consider usually?

1Co 14:35 KJV 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.

It's something to consider concerning the issue at the time.

Also what do you think about the 1Corinthians 11 message and do you think it's relevant today ?

1Co 11:3-12 KJV But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (6) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (11) Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. (12) For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.


And also 1 Timothy.

1Ti 2:12-14 KJV But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.


There seems to be a bit more going on here than misogynist teaching Doulos Iesou it's well worth digging into it. ( esp "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels" ).

( I have a passage that jumps out at me as an addition too in Matthew but I'm not willing to disregard it yet )

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Interesting Doulos Iesou. I'd be wary of using what makes us squeamish as a barometer though mate.

I would say this is a valid objection to what I wrote if it was the sole reason for my contention that it is an interpolation. From my perspective it is merely another reason to see it as an interpolation.

I agree sometimes in the Bible we see some sections which seem out of place and added to support a preference so I'm not arguing against that concept. I do think it's a difficult position to hold though because it opens a very large can of worms. Also there are some people , as you know, that totally reject Paul's teachings because of similar complaints.

I don't really think they're similar, I reject this on the basis that I don't think Paul wrote it. Based upon the Greek, how it does flow with his train of thought and how it conflicts with other teachings.

I think accepting this text leads to an even worse can of worms, one either twists the text to mean something else or they enforce the idea that it is shameful for women to speak at church.

Concerning the 1Corinthians 14 passage have you noticed the nuance of married women which has a significance we don't consider usually?

1Co 14:35 KJV 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.

It's something to consider concerning the issue at the time.

I don't see how this nuance would change much. Is it only married women who need to remain silent at church?

Also what do you think about the 1Corinthians 11 message and do you think it's relevant today ?

That is a LONG discussion, and one I have not studied as much as this one.

1Ti 2:12-14 KJV But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

You have a different word here, which the KJV as usual butchers.

The Greek word ἡσυχίᾳ does not mean silence, it means quietness which is consistent with the NT represnetation of the godly woman having a gentile and quiet nature. Not being loud and domineering.

There seems to be a bit more going on here than misogynist teaching Doulos Iesou it's well worth digging into it. ( esp "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels" ).

( I have a passage that jumps out at me as an addition too in Matthew but I'm not willing to disregard it yet )

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are not the same though, it doesn't appeal to the creative order as he does in the others, rather to the Torah. He also provides the reason for a woman's silence, because it is shameful for her to speak.

Do you think women or married women should be totally unable to speak at church? That is what the text means.

 

[By Grace]

It's a very interesting passage in light of 1Cor 11.

Chapter 11 covers a lot of ground. What exactly are you suggesting?

What I referred to was ONLY the "doctrine of silent women in the church" and how using that passage, it is impossible to establish that idea.

Since I have no idea of what you are referring to in Chapter 11, I cannot respond to your question. Could you elaborate?

 

[By Grace]

how about 'context' as in Jewish Orthodox Scripture ? > for myself, almost all of Scripture when read in Hebrew is much cleaner, simpler and plainly understood. (while like Jewish life and country and people, not often accepted but in direct conflict with the countries around them).

(this may be for another thread, as it is not just about being silent, but includes being silent for perspective)

from biblegateway.com >>
Kehillah in Corinth I 14:34-35

Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

34 Let the nashim in the kehillot be silent, for it is not permitted for them to blurt out, but let them become submissive, as it says in the Torah (BERESHIS 3:16).

35 And if the nashim wish to inquire about something, let them inquire of their own be’alim b’bayis, for it is a bushah (shame) for an isha to blurt out in the kehillah (BERESHIS 3:2).

Since the OBJ is a mixture of Yiddish ( German in origin), Hebrew and English it is not a good source to wuote or to post on a thread like this. Since you used Biblegateway.com to access that, I suggest, and request that you provide quotes from a more widely-accepted version. Barring that, if you want to go into the original language of the Greek New Testament, I suggest that you get the latest edition of the Greek New Testament, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 28th edition HERE. The $80.00 price is quite reasonable considering what you are getting

 

[agua.]

Chapter 11 covers a lot of ground. What exactly are you suggesting?

What I referred to was ONLY the "doctrine of silent women in the church" and how using that passage, it is impossible to establish that idea.

Since I have no idea of what you are referring to in Chapter 11, I cannot respond to your question. Could you elaborate?

Here's the first question I asked.

Gday By Grace how's it going. It's interesting that the silence concerning men in the church was regarding unfettered tongue speaking do you suggest this is also the context for women? That is are you saying both instructions of silence are about tongue speaking only ?

1Co 14:27-28 KJV If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. (28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 1Co 14:34-35 KJV 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. (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.


In 1Cor 11:1-16 we see the subject of headship. Do you see any relationship between the husband being the head of the wife and "wives asking their husbands at home" from ( 1Cor14:35) ? There's an interesting message going on in these passages.

 

[agua.]

I would say this is a valid objection to what I wrote if it was the sole reason for my contention that it is an interpolation. From my perspective it is merely another reason to see it as an interpolation.

Sure Doulos but I think if we dig a bit deeper into why Paul said these things we might find it isn't so terrible and possibly for a very important reason. To be fair I'll look into the interpolation claim but honestly I don't see the gross insult to women here in light of other scriptures. Do you have a link I can look at and can you give me the Strong's numbers for the out of place words you listed listed ?

"Such as the following, only being found here:
σιγάτωσαν
ἐπιτρέπεται
ὑποτασσέσθωσαν
ἐπερωτάτωσαν "

I don't really think they're similar, I reject this on the basis that I don't think Paul wrote it. Based upon the Greek, how it does flow with his train of thought and how it conflicts with other teachings.

I think accepting this text leads to an even worse can of worms, one either twists the text to mean something else or they enforce the idea that it is shameful for women to speak at church.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't really think they're similar" do you mean your rejection of this one passage isn't similar to people who reject all of Paul's writings ? One of the main reasons people reject Paul's words is because the subject of headship and submission of women tmk. Can you tell me other teachings which conflict with the passage ?

I think there's another option Doulos and it lay in the reasons Yahweh instituted the arrangement between husband and wife. It's worth looking into mate.

I don't see how this nuance would change much. Is it only married women who need to remain silent at church?

From the passage the message seems to be pointed at married women because of the headship arrangement as per 1Cor 11. It's unclear what the stipulation is for unmarried women and I'm interested to look into it but I'm thinking it would be the same.

That is a LONG discussion, and one I have not studied as much as this one.

Yeah it is an involved subject but it has direct relevance to the subject of women's speaking in Church. We haven't talked about what this speaking ( and silence ) must, and may not, be but as you say there's no point in trying to neutralise the message. Can I ask do you agree with Paul's words on headship in 1Cor 11 ? eg.

1Co 11:7 KJV For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

I know it's a touchy subject but these things are for a very important reason it seems.

You have a different word here, which the KJV as usual butchers.

The Greek word ἡσυχίᾳ does not mean silence, it means quietness which is consistent with the NT represnetation of the godly woman having a gentile and quiet nature. Not being loud and domineering.

Yeah I can agree with that. (The KJV isn't the only translation that uses silence though ) The thing is we can see a common thread here connected with the headship arrangement and the submissive directive for wives.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are not the same though, it doesn't appeal to the creative order as he does in the others, rather to the Torah. He also provides the reason for a woman's silence, because it is shameful for her to speak.

The Torah has many examples of the headship arrangement and the submissive requirement upon women.We can see Paul refers to the created order in 1Cor 11 and this comes directly from Genesis. You've hit the nail on the head with the reasons behind all this though Delous with " the created order". Paul talks about Jesus being the head of man and man being the head of woman and this goes back to Genesis ( torah ). What do you make of 1Ti 2:14 ?

1Ti 2:13-14 KJV For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

There's more going on here than meets the eye mate and it's worth starting at 1Cor 11 and untangling it then moving onto 1Cor 14.

I'm not sure what the connotation for "shameful" is ? I mean why does Paul using the word shameful imply he wasn't appealing to Torah ?

Do you think women or married women should be totally unable to speak at church? That is what the text means.

At this stage I think women are permitted to pray and exercise the spiritual gifts in Church as per 1Cor11 (which requires speaking) and the silence is specifically about public speaking. ie. speaking out in a manner to teach. I may be wrong though and if after careful study the message ( from all the relevant scriptures ) points to complete silence then I'm ok with that.

 

[By Grace]

Here's the first question I asked.

Gday By Grace how's it going. It's interesting that the silence concerning men in the church was regarding unfettered tongue speaking do you suggest this is also the context for women? That is are you saying both instructions of silence are about tongue speaking only ?

1Co 14:27-28 KJV If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. (28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 1Co 14:34-35 KJV 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. (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.


In 1Cor 11:1-16 we see the subject of headship. Do you see any relationship between the husband being the head of the wife and "wives asking their husbands at home" from ( 1Cor14:35) ? There's an interesting message going on in these passages.

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!

Each of those passages have a different subject, therefore to jumble them together to create a "silent women in the church doctrine" is not wise. You mention "headship" as perhaps the over riding principle, but I submit that cobbling Scriptures together to create a Frankenstein from Scriptures. Here is why.

You first need to ask if "headship" is universal, meaning showing deference to all men, or is it particular, meaning relating only to the husband-wife situation. Because 1 Corinthians 14:35 makes it clear that at the home, the husband is the head of the wife I believe that the particularity of the relationship is what is meant, and not being universal. Look at the passage as a whole, and not just focus on its parts.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
.​

The first thing to notice is that Jesus Christ is head of BOTH men and women. (verse 3a)
Then notice that the head of THE (definite article) woman is THE man. therefore there is a particular application in mind, and not a universal application (verse 3b)
Of course the entire "headship" is rooted in the UNIVERSAL headship of God the Father (verse 3c)

Verses 4-5 indicate that men must not have their heads covered when they pray. And that practice continues today.

However there is a fly in the ointment when it comes to verses 6-7. You see, if the practice of female submission is to be universal, then we need to have our women looking like the Amish women, wearing a bonnet, or perhaps wearing a burka, like the women in Afghanistan. And on the practical side, maintaining the universal submission of women to men it would mean that Reba could not be an Administrator here, nor could Reba moderate the posts of men. YIKES!!

All kidding aside, it is significant that the definite article "the" is used 20 times; 11 times for the women (in pink) and 9 times for the men (in blue). Since there is nothing in the Bible that is placed there by "accident" that degree of specificity MUST be significant. There are a total of 199 words in the above passage (excluding the numeration) and 44 of them are either "the women" or "the men". That is 22% of the words which specifically refer to one man or to one woman. Would God have caused Paul to mean a universal application of submission of all women to all men in the light of such specificity? I think not.

Of course, I have not gone into the Greek here, and I could if I choose to do so. I say that because I am sure that someone will go and count the Greek definite articles, and come up with something different just to "prove me wrong". I would stipulate that Paul, being such a great writer of Greek would have (anachronistically) used the Granville Sharpe rule here several times to keep from having stilted prose. But that is an aside.

Therefore, it appears to me that those in the Anabaptist community do have it wrong regarding women in the church, and I posit that others who are positing that position also have it incorrect.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Sure Doulos but I think if we dig a bit deeper into why Paul said these things we might find it isn't so terrible and possibly for a very important reason. To be fair I'll look into the interpolation claim but honestly I don't see the gross insult to women here in light of other scriptures. Do you have a link I can look at and can you give me the Strong's numbers for the out of place words you listed listed ?

"Such as the following, only being found here:
σιγάτωσαν
ἐπιτρέπεται
ὑποτασσέσθωσαν
ἐπερωτάτωσαν "



I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't really think they're similar" do you mean your rejection of this one passage isn't similar to people who reject all of Paul's writings ? One of the main reasons people reject Paul's words is because the subject of headship and submission of women tmk. Can you tell me other teachings which conflict with the passage ?

I think there's another option Doulos and it lay in the reasons Yahweh instituted the arrangement between husband and wife. It's worth looking into mate.



From the passage the message seems to be pointed at married women because of the headship arrangement as per 1Cor 11. It's unclear what the stipulation is for unmarried women and I'm interested to look into it but I'm thinking it would be the same.



Yeah it is an involved subject but it has direct relevance to the subject of women's speaking in Church. We haven't talked about what this speaking ( and silence ) must, and may not, be but as you say there's no point in trying to neutralise the message. Can I ask do you agree with Paul's words on headship in 1Cor 11 ? eg.

1Co 11:7 KJV For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

I know it's a touchy subject but these things are for a very important reason it seems.



Yeah I can agree with that. (The KJV isn't the only translation that uses silence though ) The thing is we can see a common thread here connected with the headship arrangement and the submissive directive for wives.



The Torah has many examples of the headship arrangement and the submissive requirement upon women.We can see Paul refers to the created order in 1Cor 11 and this comes directly from Genesis. You've hit the nail on the head with the reasons behind all this though Delous with " the created order". Paul talks about Jesus being the head of man and man being the head of woman and this goes back to Genesis ( torah ). What do you make of 1Ti 2:14 ?

1Ti 2:13-14 KJV For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

There's more going on here than meets the eye mate and it's worth starting at 1Cor 11 and untangling it then moving onto 1Cor 14.

I'm not sure what the connotation for "shameful" is ? I mean why does Paul using the word shameful imply he wasn't appealing to Torah ?



At this stage I think women are permitted to pray and exercise the spiritual gifts in Church as per 1Cor11 (which requires speaking) and the silence is specifically about public speaking. ie. speaking out in a manner to teach. I may be wrong though and if after careful study the message ( from all the relevant scriptures ) points to complete silence then I'm ok with that.

I've been doing some more research on this, and read this short little study on the topic. Here is the link below.

http://ntwrightpage.com/wright_women_service_church.htm

 

[By Grace]

Sure Doulos but I think if we dig a bit deeper into why Paul said these things we might find it isn't so terrible and possibly for a very important reason. To be fair I'll look into the interpolation claim but honestly I don't see the gross insult to women here in light of other scriptures. Do you have a link I can look at and can you give me the Strong's numbers for the out of place words you listed listed ?

"Such as the following, only being found here:

1. σιγάτωσαν
2. ἐπιτρέπεται
3. ὑποτασσέσθωσαν
4. ἐπερωτάτωσαν "

<SNIP>

I am not sure what is going on here, but since it relates to the discussion about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, i will post this as a way of helping you both out:

1. σιγάω:
33.121 σιγάω: to keep quiet, with the implication of preserving something which is secret—‘to keep quiet about, to say nothing about.’ αὐτοὶ ἐσίγησαν καὶ οὐδενὶ ἀπήγγειλαν ‘they kept quiet (about all this) and told no one’ Lk 9:36.

1 Corinthians 14:30

Let the first keep silence (ὁ πρωτος σιγατω [ho prōtos sigatō]). To give the next one a chance.
Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (1 Co 14:30). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

1 Corinthians 14:32

The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets (πνευματα προφητων προφηταις ὑποτασσεται [pneumata prophētōn prophētais hupotassetai]). A principle that some had forgotten.
Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (1 Co 14:30). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.


2. ἐπιτρέπεται

ἐπιτρέπεται (Root: τροπη, LN: 13.138; verb, present, passive, indicative, third person, singular)
to allow, to permit
Contained in: Segment Clause
Syntactic Force: Finite verb

Words That Modify ἐπιτρέπεται
• particle relation: The word ἐπιτρέπεται is modified by οὐ (conjunction) in 1Co 14:34, word 7 (οὐ is within the current clausal unit, before ἐπιτρέπεται).
• conjunctive relation: The word ἐπιτρέπεται is modified by ἀλλὰ (conjunction) in 1Co 14:34, word 12 (ἀλλὰ is outside of the current clausal unit).
αὐταῖς (Root: αυτος, LN: 58.31; pronoun, personal, third person, dative, plural, feminine)
he
Contained in: Segment Clause
Syntactic Force: Indirect object
λαλεῖν (Root: λαλεω, LN: 33.70; verb, present, active, infinitive)
to speak
Contained in: Infinitival Clause
Syntactic Force: Substantival infinitive functioning as Subject.
ἀλλὰ (Root: αλλος, LN: 89.125; conjunction, logical, correlative)
but
Contained in: Subordinate Clause
Syntactic Force: Adversative conjunction

Words Modified by ἀλλὰ
• conjunctive relation: The word ἀλλὰ modifies ἐπιτρέπεται (verb) in 1Co 14:34, word 9 (ἐπιτρέπεται is outside of the current clausal unit).
• conjunctive relation: The word ἀλλὰ modifies ὑποτασσέσθωσαν (verb) in 1Co 14:34, word 13 (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν is outside of the current clausal unit).
​

3. ὑποτασσέσθωσαν

36.18 ὑποτάσσομαι; ὑποταγή, ῆς f; ὑπείκω: to submit to the orders or directives of someone—‘to obey, to submit to, obedience, submission.’
ὑποτάσσομαι: δούλους ἰδίοις δεσπόταις ὑποτάσσεσθαι ‘slaves are to obey their masters’ Tt 2:9.
ὑποταγή: δοξάζοντες τὸν θεὸν ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ τῆς ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘giving glory to God on account of your obedience to the gospel of Christ which you profess’ 2 Cor 9:13.
ὑπείκω: πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν καὶ
ὑπείκετε ‘obey your leaders and submit to them’ He 13:17.
ὑποτασσέσθωσαν (Root: τασσω, LN: 36.18; verb, present, passive, imperative, third person, plural)
to subject, to subordinate
Contained in: Segment Clause
Syntactic Force: Finite verb

Words That Modify ὑποτασσέσθωσαν
• conjunctive relation: The word ὑποτασσέσθωσαν is modified by ἀλλὰ (conjunction) in 1Co 14:34, word 12 (ἀλλὰ is outside of the current clausal unit).
• subordinate-conjunctive relation: The word ὑποτασσέσθωσαν is modified by καθὼς (conjunction) in 1Co 14:34, word 14 (καθὼς is outside of the current clausal unit).
καθὼς (Root: ως + κατα, LN: 64.14; conjunction, adverbial, comparative)
as, just as
Contained in: Subordinate Clause
Syntactic Force: Comparative subordinate clause

Words Modified by καθὼς
• subordinate-conjunctive relation: The word καθὼς modifies ὑποτασσέσθωσαν (verb) in 1Co 14:34, word 13 (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν is outside of the current clausal unit).
καὶ (Root: και, LN: 89.93; adverb, emphatic)
also
Contained in: Subordinate Clause
Syntactic Force: Emphatic conjunction

Words Modified by καὶ
• adverbial relation: The word καὶ modifies λέγει (verb) in 1Co 14:34, word 18 (λέγει is within the current clausal unit, after καὶ).
​

4. ἐρωτάωa

33.180 ἐρωτάωa; ἐπερωτάωa: to ask for information—‘to ask, to ask a question.’
ἐρωτάωa: ἐφοβοῦντο ἐρωτῆσαι αὐτὸν περὶ τοῦ ῥήματος τούτου ‘they were afraid to ask him about this matter’ Lk 9:45.
ἐπερωτάωa: ἐπηρώτα αὐτόν, Τί ὄνομά σοι; ‘he asked him, What is your name?’ Mk 5:9.
In a number of languages a term such as ἐρωτάωa or ἐπερωτάωa implies an introduction of direct discourse, so that in Lk 9:45, for example, it may be necessary to translate ‘they were afraid to ask him, What do you mean by what you said?’

ἐπερωτάτωσαν (Root: ερωταω, LN: 33.180; verb, present, active, imperative, third person, plural)
to ask
Contained in: Segment Clause
Syntactic Force: Finite verb

Words That Modify ἐπερωτάτωσαν
• subordinate-conjunctive relation: The word ἐπερωτάτωσαν is modified by εἰ (conjunction) in 1Co 14:35, word 1 (εἰ is outside of the current clausal unit).
• prepositional relation: The word ἐπερωτάτωσαν is modified by ἐν (preposition) in 1Co 14:35, word 6 (ἐν is outside of the current clausal unit).
αἰσχρὸν (Root: αισχρος, LN: 88.150; adjective, nominative, singular, neuter)
shameful
Contained in: Segment Clause
Syntactic Force: Predicate adjective
γάρ (Root: γαρ, LN: 89.23; conjunction, adverbial, causal)
for
Contained in: Sentence
Syntactic Force: Explanatory conjunction
ἐστιν (Root: ειμι, LN: 13.1; verb, present, active, indicative, third person, singular)
to be
Contained in: Segment Clause
Syntactic Force: Finite verb
γυναικὶ (Root: γυνη, LN: 9.34; noun, dative, singular, feminine)
woman, wife
Contained in: Segment Clause
Syntactic Force: Indirect object​

Lukaszewski, A. L., & Dubis, M. (2009). The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament: Expansions and Annotations (1 Co 14:34-35).
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains. New York: United Bible Societies.

Now you have the definitions of the words plus the grammar from the MOST RELIABLE sources available. What is interesting to me is what I placed in red above, and what Paul made as his main point in this segment, that THERE IS TO BE ORDER IN THE CHURCH.

From this, it seems that there were some women, who in their enthusiasm were actually creating chaos, and that seems to be the underlying reasoning for this passage,

Again, it cannot mean a universal submission of women to men.

Hope this helps.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

quietness and submission are 2 different things.
in genesis Yhwh's Word says that "He will rule over you" (husband over wife) ..... with as written elsewhere "love as Christ loves the ekklesia" and not unrighteously.
also throughout Scripture when women usurped the authority whatever it was, (same when men usurped any authority Yhwh had placed over them, i.e. not just women), then order was broken.

like many women in Scripture whom Yhwh called and chose and delivered His message through,
corrie ten boom went to some 63 countries after wwtwo and told audiences in high places and in deep dark places(violent offenders in prisons, including in south africa) , in churches and even on television (without any ostentatious or profit motive - she NEVER had a fund raiser, on purpose, and no 'committee' or group to raise money for her).

anyhow, corrie ten boom never usurped authority, and was used far and wide to tell others of God's Love by her testimony and the knowledge and wisdom God granted her. (her students knew the names and history of every prophet in the Bible, as well as who adam and eve were )

other than nora lam from china, I haven't seen another woman used as mightily as her, and few men as well.

 

[Deborah13]

I've been doing some more research on this, and read this short little study on the topic. Here is the link below.

http://ntwrightpage.com/wright_women_service_church.htm

Thank you for posting this paper. It confirmed several of my own understandings and insight into others. The writing on 1 Tim. is what I as well believe was going on. I believe I first read this on this site...http://christianthinktank.com/

 

[agua.]

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!

Each of those passages have a different subject, therefore to jumble them together to create a "silent women in the church doctrine" is not wise. You mention "headship" as perhaps the over riding principle, but I submit that cobbling Scriptures together to create a Frankenstein from Scriptures. Here is why.

You first need to ask if "headship" is universal, meaning showing deference to all men, or is it particular, meaning relating only to the husband-wife situation. Because 1 Corinthians 14:35 makes it clear that at the home, the husband is the head of the wife I believe that the particularity of the relationship is what is meant, and not being universal. Look at the passage as a whole, and not just focus on its parts.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
.​

The first thing to notice is that Jesus Christ is head of BOTH men and women. (verse 3a)
Then notice that the head of THE (definite article) woman is THE man. therefore there is a particular application in mind, and not a universal application (verse 3b)
Of course the entire "headship" is rooted in the UNIVERSAL headship of God the Father (verse 3c)

Verses 4-5 indicate that men must not have their heads covered when they pray. And that practice continues today.

However there is a fly in the ointment when it comes to verses 6-7. You see, if the practice of female submission is to be universal, then we need to have our women looking like the Amish women, wearing a bonnet, or perhaps wearing a burka, like the women in Afghanistan. And on the practical side, maintaining the universal submission of women to men it would mean that Reba could not be an Administrator here, nor could Reba moderate the posts of men. YIKES!!

All kidding aside, it is significant that the definite article "the" is used 20 times; 11 times for the women (in pink) and 9 times for the men (in blue). Since there is nothing in the Bible that is placed there by "accident" that degree of specificity MUST be significant. There are a total of 199 words in the above passage (excluding the numeration) and 44 of them are either "the women" or "the men". That is 22% of the words which specifically refer to one man or to one woman. Would God have caused Paul to mean a universal application of submission of all women to all men in the light of such specificity? I think not.

Of course, I have not gone into the Greek here, and I could if I choose to do so. I say that because I am sure that someone will go and count the Greek definite articles, and come up with something different just to "prove me wrong". I would stipulate that Paul, being such a great writer of Greek would have (anachronistically) used the Granville Sharpe rule here several times to keep from having stilted prose. But that is an aside.

Therefore, it appears to me that those in the Anabaptist community do have it wrong regarding women in the church, and I posit that others who are positing that position also have it incorrect.

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!

Oh dear I'd hate to have an orphaned Frankenstein scripture for a doctrine :biggrin Maybe some redaction is in order to make the stove hotter.

By Grace I haven't given a full synopsis of my understanding of 1Cor 14 but have only presented a starting point for discussion. Regarding context did you see my question concerning the type of speaking in question? Here it is again.

Gday By Grace how's it going. It's interesting that the silence concerning men in the church was regarding unfettered tongue speaking do you suggest this is also the context for women? That is are you saying both instructions of silence are about tongue speaking only ?

1Co 14:27-28 KJV If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. (28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 1Co 14:34-35 KJV 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. (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.

 

[agua.]

I've been doing some more research on this, and read this short little study on the topic. Here is the link below.

http://ntwrightpage.com/wright_women_service_church.htm

Thanks Doulos I'll take a look at it.