Women are to be silent when the Church assembles!

[carlos123]

And incase you are still missing the point, I stopped talking about my own opinion long ago and have been concentrating on giving light to the complications and the misconceptions - either way - that this topic and this verse has, from the use of grammer to the meanings of the word speak, to the textual dilemas that bible scholars face.

Maybe this is part of our communication "problem" WoodlandApple.

My interest lies in understanding what Paul said and not so much in knowing about the complications and misconceptions - either way.

I also have an interest in knowing why you believe what you believe about what he said.

So while you may well enough be bringing up things that are complications for complications sake...I want to know what you believe and why and to counter false or innacurate beliefs about this issue wherever I find them.

Just saying that this may explain why we have had a bit of trouble communicating in our last posts is all.

Carlos

 

[woodlandapple]

My contention is that whatever "tenses, moods and voices form" the Greek word, sigao, you cannot tell me from the word alone (apart from it's context and the surrounding words it is used with) as to whether it is talking about a limited silence or an unlimited one within the context of a church assembly.

You seem to disagree with my contention but have yet to show which tense, which mood, and which voice of sigao leads anyone to definitely say that it refers to a limited silence.

its a 3rd person plural active imperative present

This is what demonstrates how sigao shows its aspect and time, I have shown this several times.

Present gives it a sense of Process, imperative gives it the sense of a command, 3rd person Imperative gives it the sense of 'let them' or 'they should'
active indicates its refering to the nominative of the sentence as the one being acted apon. This is very simplistic and going into any more detail will push the talk back above peoples heads.

The definate sense of process shows us that silence is not limited to a single act, but rather that it is a continuing process. That Women are to be silent and keep being silent, This supports the notion that women are not to make ANY noise at all, not even greetings etc if we take a plain reading of the word in question to mean only silence. however if it is a continuous process of women not squabbling etc then that fits in whith what the rest of the bible tells us, and also compliments the gender roles of women.

I beleive that this simply contradicts what the Bible says elsewhere, and Ive pointed them out numerous times.

The consistant use of Sigao to reference silence with keeping the peace/secret etc in the NT sets a precedent,the occassional usage where it refers to complete silence can be seen as exceptions to the rule to the point where the first reading of sigao should be keeping peace/secret as the default and only viewed as absolute silence when the text clearly points out that it is, I dont think this text does. And whilst this does give us no reason to dismiss silence outright, it does give us enough to use the meaning that is used the most unless proven otherwise.

THe continuous process that the tense denotes shows that any allowances that we might give are all made void if we say that this is silence, It means at all times in the church, not just at meetings, not just with spiritual gifts not just with relations between men and female,

Why would the bible commend and honour Female leaders of the faith if they where to remain silent at all times in the church, how can you lead if your not allowed to talk? why would Paul tell women to prophesies with their head covered in church if they cant talk at all? why would Paul encourage the 'brethren' both male and female to prophesy and speak in tounges, but to do so orderly in the summery and conclusion of this passage if women where not to speak at all?

How is women being silent in churches honouring their original purpose of serving as Helpers to Man?

There are larger implications as well, We all know that church isnt just on sundays, and the church is the body of Christ - how we are told to interact in church is how we should interact in our relation with Christ, and other christians, The Church is the body of Christ, and the body of Christ is meant to bring Christs mission to the world, then how does Women being silent in all this fit in?????

Doctrine should not be built apon one verse. But rather what the bible shows as as a whole, nowhere else does the bible show is that women should be slient, so I approach this passage with that in my mind.

 

[Webb]

I understood we were addressing only the assembly and not what members of the church may do or not do outside the assembly. Which is it? It makes a BIG difference!

 

[AirDancer]

The assembly we're discussing is any time and every time members of the Corinth brethen gathered together to share their faith, whether it would be in prayer, what we would call Bible Study, or to go over Paul's teachings.

Because there were not established church buildings at the time, whenever and where-ever they gathered in Christ's name would be considered an assembly, whether it was as few as 2 or 3 or as many as were members of the body of Corinth Christians.

Hope this helps.

 

[Webb]

I understand there can be and is a difference between ''BRETHREN GATHERED TOGETHER TO SHARE THEIR FAITH, WHETHER IT WOULD BE IN PRAYER, WHAT WE WOULD CALL BIBLE STUDY, OR TO GO OVER PAUL'S TEACHINGS'', and the worship assembly where the Lord's supper is observed. I believe I Cor.11 and 14 make that distinction. This is Wednesday, and in a few moments I shall leave and attend an assembly where what you mention in the above will be done. I refer to the assembly on the Lord's day where the Lord's supper is observed. I also believe it cannot be shown that in such assemblies as you mentioned wherein there is a mixed gender that the woman spoke, no, it cannot be found. If so, will someone please call my attention to it.

 

[woodlandapple]

my apologies upfront as I dont have time to find verses or produce evidence for or against at this time.


I think that reason and logic would tell us that the women leaders of the early church (of which there where several) that we have talked about already on this thread had some sort of voice or role in church, or else how could they be leaders in it???? I remember discussion already that say just because someone had a title didnt mean that they exercised it, just how did they get that title in the first place? Could they have got it if they had been silent everytime they did church?

Paul doesnt make the distinction allowing women to talk to other women in 14:34 but rather commands them to be silent and to keep being silent in the churches.
SO what are the implications to this command today? if smallgroups are church then how can women take part? when doing outreach as a church, how can women take part?

I think that a 'plain reading of this text' approach reads too much ontology into the verse without considering how the verse and concept funtion as part of the larger Gospel.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[JoReba]

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;


So in the clearest sense of the Scripture any husband who is not dead is not following the Word.

Eph 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
You are here typing how can you think to type and be Giving thanks always?

Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
You own anything?

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Know any deacons who are not married and have no children?

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.

All of those things from Scripture can easily be done while at the same time women remain silent in "The Churches."

Lol. Praise God for the clarity and surety of His Word for us today. Praise Him for The Holy Spirit which reveals the significance and understanding of His Word without using human intuition and human ideas inserted into it. Amen.

 

[carlos123]

its a 3rd person plural active imperative present...

Thank you WoodlandApple! That's exactly the explanation of your basis for believing that silence means keep the peace and otherwise that I was looking for.

Your explanation is clear and there is no need to further explain it to me.

As I suspected however your basis is comprised mostly of what if's and this could not be because and otherwise and not something concrete as in this word means that to support your belief.

I quote...

The definate sense of process shows us that silence is not limited to a single act, but rather that it is a continuing process. That Women are to be silent and keep being silent, This supports the notion that women are not to make ANY noise at all, not even greetings etc if we take a plain reading of the word in question to mean only silence. however if it is a continuous process of women not squabbling etc then that fits in whith what the rest of the bible tells us, and also compliments the gender roles of women.

For purposes of determining what Paul said it doesn't matter if what Paul says fits in with the rest of the Bible. It is what it is and he said what he said. Rather than trying to make it say something else more in line with what we understand the rest of the bible to say (which understanding is of course subject to being wrong) what we ought to be doing is taking what Paul said at face value and seeking the Lord as to how it fits with the rest of the Bible. Not discounting it because it does not seem to fit.

Likewise it matters not if it complements the role of women to say that the silence is of a kind only limited to being silent while disrupting. If it compliments it in how we think it should or in what we understand that role to be.

It doesn't matter!

The question is what did Paul actually say NOT, NOT, NOT how well what he said fits in or does not fit in with whatever else he might have said such that if it does not seem to fit we discount or ignore it in favor of whatever other understanding we have.

I mean good grief. Even a seven year old child could tell us what Paul said.

Women means...well...ladies. Their mommies. The opposite sex.

Silence means shut up. Be quiet. Don't talk (I am speaking as a seven year old might say about what the verse says).

Church means that meeting that all the Christians gather at.

There is nothing complicated about understanding what Paul actually said. It's in ALL the manuscripts. In ALL our English bible's and our Greek one's. And whether it goes after verse 40, verse 33, or who knows where (not that there is any definitive reason to believe it goes anywhere else other than where it is in ALL our English bible's...just saying) none of that takes away from the plain command of God through Paul that women are to be silent in church assemblies!

I beleive that this simply contradicts what the Bible says elsewhere, and Ive pointed them out numerous times.

Again...just your opinion and nothing definitive by any means. We do not interpret or accept verses based on what does not seem to be contradictory. We interpret it based on what it says!

The consistant use of Sigao to reference silence with keeping the peace/secret etc in the NT sets a precedent,

We do not interpret the bible based on supposed precedent. We interpret it based on what it says leaving what it says to fall where it might. Not to mention that there is no such consistent use (see some of my previous posts showing clearly where it was not used as such...1 Cor 14:28 being a very clear use of an unlimited silence for the duration of the assembly when there is no interpreter).

You believe there is precedent and that we should interpret sigao in 1 Cor 14:34 a certain way because in your mind all other verses where it is used, use it in a certain way (which is completely untrue by the way as a cursory reading of these other verses readily shows).

the occassional usage where it refers to complete silence can be seen as exceptions to the rule...

Ah...an admission that it is used in another sense! Good.

We do not interpret the bible based on arbitrary rules made up by who knows where that says that we ought to interpret a word based on how it is used elsewhere.

to the point where the first reading of sigao should be keeping peace/secret as the default and only viewed as absolute silence when the text clearly points out that it is, I dont think this text does.

Says who that the first reading should be keeping the peace? Says who?

We do not interpret the bible based on a first reading anything.

We ought to interpret the bible based on what it says!

You readily admit that the context and text are important but of course you state that you do not believe sigao in context is a silence of a kind that is unlimited for the duration of an assembly.

So far because of a supposed precedent meaning from other verses (which is by no means conclusive either way) a rule of first use (which doesn't matter in the least and is nothing more than an assumption if a verse does not clearly indicate one way or another...in other words it could be a new use and meaning or a first use, or a second use, or anything else...who knows) and your personal opinion.

And whilst this does give us no reason to dismiss silence outright...

Agreed.

...it does give us enough to use the meaning that is used the most unless proven otherwise.

No. It gives us enough to say that we cannot dismiss silence outright and that 1 Cor 14:34 could well be referring to that.

We do not interpret the bible based on how a word is used most often when that word is used in various ways throughout it's use throughout the bible. To mean keeping the peace AND keeping something secret AND keeping silent!

We conclude that it doesn't mean keeping silent because...well...because it is used elsewhere in another way?!

Not a good way to determine it's use one way or another. Just personal opinion and certainly nothing definitive.

I believe the context makes it very clear that the use is of an unlimited kind that lasts for an entire assembly (refer to my previous posts for that clarity).

Why would the bible commend and honour Female leaders of the faith if they where to remain silent at all times in the church, how can you lead if your not allowed to talk?

A rational and logical question but we do not interpret the bible based on what seems logical and rationale to us in our natural selves. We interpret the bible based on what it says!

You assume female leaders of a kind that ought to be able to talk in the assembly (akin to women pastors). A great big assumption that is not supported biblically.

why would Paul tell women to prophesies with their head covered in church if they cant talk at all?

You assume that Paul's instructions about head coverings are meant to be applied within an assembly when NOTHING in the context of those instructions sets the context to be a church assembly in a definitive way as in there could be no other context in mind.

why would Paul encourage the 'brethren' both male and female to prophesy and speak in tounges, but to do so orderly in the summery and conclusion of this passage if women where not to speak at all?

You completely ignore the possibility that Paul gives liberty for women to pray and prophesy, loudly, as often as they like outside the assembly.

And you assume that these instructions were for women as well as men completely ignoring Paul's clear instructions to the contrary that women ought not to speak out in the assembly.

How is women being silent in churches honouring their original purpose of serving as Helpers to Man?

There is something far greater than being a helper to man here. And that something is the need to glorify the Lord of all authority in and through the assembly!

You completely miss the implications of silence as an expression of submission that points to the one having all authority. That without an expression of submission...a visible expression, it is difficult to know that submission is even going on with the result that His glory as the ultimate one in authority is diminished.

But helpful or not...doesn't matter in the least!!

We do not interpret the bible based on how something seems to be helpful or not. We are not God! We do not believe and obey based on what seems logical to us.

Christians take the bible to be God's word to us and our role is to simply believe and obey what it says as an expression of love for God.

There are larger implications as well, We all know that church isnt just on sundays, and the church is the body of Christ - how we are told to interact in church is how we should interact in our relation with Christ, and other christians, The Church is the body of Christ, and the body of Christ is meant to bring Christs mission to the world, then how does Women being silent in all this fit in?????

Christians should not care one whit how it fits or doesn't fit. The only consideration is what does it say!

We ought to have hearts to ask our Father in heaven how high when He says jump. Not whether or not jumping fits in with what we ought be doing!!

God said for women to be silent in the assembly! We should be asking ourselves as to how silent He might want us to be and discussing that rather than trying to come up with reasons why Paul could not have possibly meant for women to be silent in the first place!

Doctrine should not be built apon one verse.

Agreed. But where a verse is clear it should most definitely be a part of forming a doctrine. That 1 Cor 14:34 does not by any means stand alone as requiring women to be silent and in submission makes it even stronger.

But rather what the bible shows as as a whole, nowhere else does the bible show is that women should be slient, so I approach this passage with that in my mind.

We do not interpret the bible based on the principle of nowhere else. That a verse cannot possibly mean what it so plainly says because what it says is nowhere else to be found.

Not to mention that such a thing is not true at all. Paul connected being quiet with submission in 1 Timothy as well.

And the need for women to be in submission is all over the place.

You have a lot of assumptions and personal opinions mixed in with your Greek WoodlandApple.

For me to continue back and forth with you over this is bordering on us falling into wrangling about words which will not do anyone any good and something that it falls on me not to do if I am going to be obedient to God.

You have stated what you believe. I have stated what the bible says.

Each person must decide for themselves in the presence of God whether what has been said is so.

I will leave it at that between me and you other than to answer two other points that you brought up which I feel a need to respond to lest anyone reading this thread be left thinking that what you said about the points I will address shortly is the way it is.

Carlos

 

[woodlandapple]

For purposes of determining what Paul said it doesn't matter if what Paul says fits in with the rest of the Bible. It is what it is and he said what he said. Rather than trying to make it say something else more in line with what we understand the rest of the bible to say (which understanding is of course subject to being wrong) what we ought to be doing is taking what Paul said at face value and seeking the Lord as to how it fits with the rest of the Bible. Not discounting it because it does not seem to fit.

I disagree, Jesus and the authors are constantly refering back to other parts of the bible scripture to demonstrate that what is going on fits in with the whole story, Paul is also inviting us to see in the Law how his command 'fits in. The bible is a whole, not the sum of its parts.

I mean good grief. Even a seven year old child could tell us what Paul said.

really, in that case I invite you to show this to a seven year old

αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει

Church means that meeting that all the Christians gather at.

Im yet to see how you show this other than your opinion

We do not interpret the bible based on supposed precedent. We interpret it based on what it says leaving what it says to fall where it might.

what an irresponsible way of looking at it, especially when there are no word for word translation from Greek to English, and most words have more than one english 'meaning' if we where just to make words 'fall where they might' the bible in english would make no sense.

We do not interpret the bible based on arbitrary rules made up by who knows where that says that we ought to interpret a word based on how it is used elsewhere.

when words have multiple meanings and implications, how do you suggest we find the most accurate one? THis is how we get the understanding of Logos as John uses is, and the theology behind it, not by what the word means, but by how it is used elsewhere.

We ought to interpret the bible based on what it says!

and what is says has multiple meanings, so how do we decide the one that's right?

You readily admit that the context and text are important but of course you state that you do not believe sigao in context is a silence of a kind that is unlimited for the duration of an assembly.

I do believe it is unlimited, as the verse clearly shows it is a continuing process.

and your personal opinion.

you make it sound like that this is my opinion alone, and by comparision everyone else shares your opinion. My college library has shelves dedicated to the issue of women in church and the vast majority disagree with a plain reading of this text. (not that this is definitive proof one way or another)

We do not interpret the bible based on how a word is used most often when that word is used in various ways throughout it's use throughout the bible. To mean keeping the peace AND keeping something secret AND keeping silent!

We conclude that it doesn't mean keeping silent because...well...because it is used elsewhere in another way?!

Not a good way to determine it's use one way or another. Just personal opinion and certainly nothing definitive.

your right, we determine by what makes more sense in context, so which makes more sense? is a good question when trying to determine its meaning for ourselves

I believe the context makes it very clear that the use is of an unlimited kind that lasts for an entire assembly (refer to my previous posts for that clarity).

I agree its to last the entire context of 'church' the point is what type of silence is asked for, its not about limiting anything, but further explaining it.

You assume female leaders of a kind that ought to be able to talk in the assembly (akin to women pastors). A great big assumption that is not supported biblically.

so how do the female leaders at your church lead? Or do you not have female welcomers, female small group leaders, female kids or youth leaders?

You assume that Paul's instructions about head coverings are meant to be applied within an assembly when NOTHING in the context of those instructions sets the context to be a church assembly in a definitive way as in there could be no other context in mind.

and you assume it sets the context in exclusion of the church, show me where Paul excludes it? other than your interpretation of 34.

And you assume that these instructions were for women as well as men completely ignoring Paul's clear instructions to the contrary that women ought not to speak out in the assembly.

this is not an assumption, if Paul wanted to reference only men, there are clear and distinct ways of doing so. Paul uses the clear and distinct way that made it clear he was referencing both Genders. You cant switch and bait like this, tell us to plainly read one verse, while only interpret others.

You completely miss the implications of silence as an expression of submission that points to the one having all authority. That without an expression of submission...a visible expression, it is difficult to know that submission is even going on with the result that His glory as the ultimate one in authority is diminished.

submission is not subservience and the issue is not submission, but what does Paul mean when he says silence.

Christians take the bible to be God's word to us and our role is to simply believe and obey what it says as an expression of love for God.

I wholeheartedly agree, and yet this in itself does not help us understand what Paul means when he writes Sigao

Christians should not care one whit how it fits or doesn't fit. The only consideration is what does it say!

and in context for how its said.

Agreed. But where a verse is clear it should most definitely be a part of forming a doctrine. That 1 Cor 14:34 does not by any means stand alone as requiring women to be silent and in submission makes it even stronger.

So again, show us where in the law does it say for women to be silent?

You have a lot of assumptions and personal opinions mixed in with your Greek WoodlandApple.

Yes, and I have tried to seperate the two, but you keep wanting me to draw the two together. I do seek to seperate the two and Im sorry if thats not made clear.

You have stated what you believe. I have stated what the bible says.

mymy, how condesending. You most certainly have not, and display much arrogance to suggest so.

You advocate a 'plain reading' of 34 yet promote interpretation for the verses around, you tell us that we cant find destinction in silence, but tell us that 'the churches' needs to be interpreted beyond the plain understanding. demonstrate a lack of knowledge in simple English grammer and entirly dismiss techniques and approaches that most experts employ and advocate.
I gladly tell you that what I beleive is my opinion, when you state that what you beleive is fact, I refer you back to what I said in my first post and I retire from this thread.

 

[carlos123]

I disagree, Jesus and the authors are...

I understand.

As I said in my last post I have said what I have said and you have said what you have said and I leave it up to everyone reading this thread to make up their own mind in the presence of God respecting our separate positions on this subject.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

WoodlandApple,

I'd like to apologize for the way I said something.

In response to my statement that you had said what you believe, that I had said what the bible says, and that I was going to leave it as such you said...

mymy, how condesending. You most certainly have not, and display much arrogance to suggest so.

I can see that, from your standpoint, what I said would have come across as condescending. Only because you think your points are valid, not personal opinion, and otherwise biblical.

I did not mean to sound condescending. Or to be condescending toward you.

I stated what I said because from my standpoint it is the truth. That you stated what you believe and that I stated what the bible says.

In praying about things after I posted however, how I said what I said did not sit well with me in my spirit and I was reminded that the Lord leaves room for people to be wrong (including myself) without having to go around unnecessarily offending anyone.

Sometimes offense is inevitable but this is not one of those times and I was out of line for saying that the way I did.

Sorry.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

I'd like to address something that was recently brought up in this thread. Namely that the law referred to by Paul in 1 Cor 14:34 refers to not being allowed to speak rather than submission.

The verse (from the NIV) reads...

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

The point was brought up that in a sentence having double commas in English the middle part is a clarification and not a necessity of the sentence and that it could be read as..

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak as the law says.

I did some digging around and found out that yes, that is the case at times. But it is equally true that double commas do not always indicate a part in the middle that is unnecessary and unrelated to the first part of the sentence.

For example in the following sentence...

Banks, which hold over a billion dollars in assets, are rare.

The middle part is absolutely necessary or we would end up with the nonsensical sentence "Banks are rare." (for more on the use of commas in the English language and thus in the language of our English bible's see http://lilt.ilstu.edu/golson/punctuation/comma.html).

In other words to say that submission is definitely a non-essential part of the verse is incorrect. It is possible that it is not but as I have shown in the above sentence having double commas does not always make it so.

If you think about it to say that women "are not allowed to speak as the law says." would be biblically nonsensical since there is absolutely not a single law in the Old Testament which says that women must be silent.

I propose that Paul was not talking about a law that says that women must be silent at all. But rather of the general requirement in the law (i.e. "as the law says") that women must be submissive. Not speaking being one expression of that submission in an assembly of the church.

Submission is thus essential to understanding why Paul commanded women to not speak during an assembly. Because submission points to the Lord of all authority. It brings glory to Him for women to act in submission to be silent during an assembly of the church.

Just as it brings glory to Him for women to wear a head covering (a symbol of authority or of being under submission if you will) at all other times outside the assembly when they are praying or prophecying (I realize that some of you think the context of that is also an assembly of the church but...I differ with you on that and see no grounds for believing that such is definitively the case from the text of 1 Cor 11 itself).

1 Cor 14:34 is not the only place that Paul connects submission with silence. He does so again in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 which says (in the 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.

The same one who penned 1 Cor 14 brings up some of the same points in 1 Timothy 2.

Namely not allowing a woman to speak (i.e. she must remain quiet) and connecting the silence of women with submission.

I am not addressing the context for the application of 1 Timothy only making the point that submission is an essential part of what Paul taught about women and silence.

Sorry but the connection between submission and silence on the part of women is clear. The only lack of clarity is that our hearts are simply unwilling to obey what God inspired him to say.

Carlos

 

[woodlandapple]

I'd like to address something that was recently brought up in this thread. Namely that the law referred to by Paul in 1 Cor 14:34 refers to not being allowed to speak rather than submission.





I did some digging around and found out that yes, that is the case at times. But it is equally true that double commas do not always indicate a part in the middle that is unnecessary and unrelated to the first part of the sentence.

For example in the following sentence...

Banks, which hold over a billion dollars in assets, are rare.


The middle part is absolutely necessary or we would end up with the nonsensical sentence "Banks are rare." (for more on the use of commas in the English language and thus in the language of our English bible's see http://lilt.ilstu.edu/golson/punctuation/comma.html).

Carlos, I demostrated this usage as well in post #336and I demonstrated how we could apply it to this verse in question. Your example confuses different ways of using the commas.

Your example "Banks, which hold over a billion dollars in assets, are rare" demonstrates the restrictive clause

while its use in narrowing to "Banks are rare." demonstrates the aside clause.
You are twisting things to make them suit your understanding.

If we would apply the correct understanding of the restrictive clause to your sentence "Banks, which hold over a billion dollars in assets, are rare"

we can rearrange it to say banks holding over a billion dollars in assests are rare

in this case we need BOTH banks and the assets to qualify rare. Or rather, assets qualify banks, it doesnt replace it. You cant just have banks but similarly you cant just have assets. And at the end of the day we are still talking about banks, not assets.

In relation to 1corinthians14 if you wish to apply this clause then you need not speaking AND submission both to qualify Law, and not speaking is still the main verb in relation to the noun (the law) ie. at the end of the day we are still talking about no t speaking.

furthermore, the use of the Greek word lego to describe what the law is saying dismisses the idea that we are talking about a general requirement of the law, but rather a specifically spelt out law as my discourse on the Greek usage of the word Lego in post 309 .

You are promoting a literal translation of the first half of this verse and advocating interpretation of the rest. which one is it? you cant do both, having your cake and eating it too so to speak.

 

[carlos123]

...Your example confuses different ways of using the commas...

I see nothing confusing about my comments regarding the use of double commas and how they do not always indicate that the middle part is non-essential.

As such I will let them stand on their own without further comment.

I am not offended or anything by your saying that my example "confuses" WoodlandApple. It's just that there is nothing else that I can add other than what I said.

Everyone must take into account what either of us have said and decide for themselves what to do with it.

Carlos

 

[tessiewebb]

Sorry but the connection between submission and silence on the part of women is clear. The only lack of clarity is that our hearts are simply unwilling to obey what God inspired him to say.

Carlos

"Our" hearts? Don't think you are female, Carlos. This "unsilent" female begs to differ with you. This passage has been grounds for a lot of quite heated debate in the years I've been in the Christian world. Your logic is good here in your post, but you failed to take into account that Galations 3:28 states emphatically that "in Christ there is neither male nor female but you are all one in Christ Jesus".
So, brother/sister/one Carlos, guess you will have to be silent. Are "our" hearts willing "to obey what God inspired him to say"?

 

[reba]

I would be interested in just what silence in this case means to Carlos?
women singing?
women to not utter a sound when they walk in the door
women to not speak when a group 'happens, to get together

Are you Carlos willing to hold your self to the same exacting standards you see set here by God?

 

[HisSheep]

"Our" hearts? Don't think you are female, Carlos. This "unsilent" female begs to differ with you. This passage has been grounds for a lot of quite heated debate in the years I've been in the Christian world. Your logic is good here in your post, but you failed to take into account that Galations 3:28 states emphatically that "in Christ there is neither male nor female but you are all one in Christ Jesus".
So, brother/sister/one Carlos, guess you will have to be silent. Are "our" hearts willing "to obey what God inspired him to say"?

Sassy!

It really isn't about women keeping silence... That's mere legalism.

If we consider the reason for the restriction we find that it is about leadership, not decibels. The head of man is Christ, and the head of woman is man. This hierarchy is biblical whether we like it or not.

Men are exhorted by scripture to be the spiritual leaders of their families. They are also to be the leaders in the church. Women are to model Christ and submit to that leadership, just as Christ submitted to the will of the Father. Christ is in no way inferior to the father, but He was glorified in His submission.

They set a better example of Godliness to the church and to the younger girls by their submission than by their wresting of authority. It is the glory of a woman to be in submission, just as it was Jesus' glory to submit.

And also… It kills me to see Galatians 3:28 used to justify gender neutrality. This verse is part of a paragraph about God’s salvation being offered to people of all sorts. The verse in no way removes all male/female distinctions.

-HisSheep

 

[reba]

Sassy!

It really isn't about women keeping silence... That's mere legalism.

If we consider the reason for the restriction we find that it is about leadership, not decibels. The head of man is Christ, and the head of woman is man. This hierarchy is biblical whether we like it or not.

Men are exhorted by scripture to be the spiritual leaders of their families. They are also to be the leaders in the church. Women are to model Christ and submit to that leadership, just as Christ submitted to the will of the Father. Christ is in no way inferior to the father, but He was glorified in His submission.

They set a better example of Godliness to the church and to the younger girls by their submission than by their wresting of authority. It is the glory of a woman to be in submission, just as it was Jesus' glory to submit.

And also… It kills me to see Galatians 3:28 used to justify gender neutrality. This verse is part of a paragraph about God’s salvation being offered to people of all sorts. The verse in no way removes all male/female distinctions.

-HisSheep

Sassy indeed! other than THAT!

Nicely said hisSheep

 

[Justice]

We probably differ in what the word "assumption" means Justice since I did no such thing or assumed no such thing.

In other words I do not assume that women must be silent because God speaks to and through me or men only.

Maybe you assume that I assume. Don't know.

I believe that women should be silent in church because Paul said it. That's not an assumption.

As for God speaking only through men I have never said that as in that He can and will only speak a word through men at any time.

That He choses to speak through men in an assembly of the church is not my decision or assumption. It is His revealed will.

Carlos

Carlos, you've come full circle contradicting your own denial while totally ignoring 1 Corinthians 14:36: What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

I'm gonna bounce all over the place here trying to get a better understanding becasue there are so many unanswered questions.

Speaking of ignoring when I mentioned Matthew 15:22-28 concerning Jesus, his disciples, the Canaanite woman, Exodus 4:16 Moses, Aaron, Acts 2:17 (your daughters shall prophesy), Acts 18 Paul's Nazirite vow and others you just blew them off. The only scriptures you seem to know are the ones concerning women being silent. You must be what the topic police would define as the perfect dream. I thought perhaps it's tunnel vision or no vision at all but it's nothing more then an agenda, meaning that you are on a mission. Your sole purpose was starting this thread.

In your first post you stated as much:

Hi there,

This is my first post here and I am not really sure where to post this.

Basically I would like to get input on a couple of things that I have been led to believe based on my reading of 1 Corinthians 14.

That one...the modern day Church is resistant to the Holy Spirit and two...that she allows what is considered disgraceful within her meetings.

I want to make sure that my conclusions of such are based on sound biblical reasoning and that they can't be taken as just simply my own personal opinion.

It's really odd that you would referred to the Church as she and her (female).

I have been reading and thinking about 1 Cor 14 lately. Mulling it over for a couple of days.

If you have been a Christian for a while I am sure you are familiar with it. It's where Paul talks about prophecy and tongues and how each one has a Psalm, a prophecy, a tongues, an interpretation, and so forth so as to express whatever the Spirit is prompting them to express within an assembly of the Church.

Based on what I read it seems unavoidable to conclude that the modern day Church is resistant to the free operation of the Holy Spirit within the Body. Why?

Because what I read there is not practiced or even allowed (as is written) in any Church anywhere that I know of. Now granted...I do not know every Church around and really only know a very few from personal experience. However in general I would say that the one's I have come to know are very similar to most all other Churches around so it's reasonable to assume that most all Churches today operate the same basic way.

Only a select few are allowed and encouraged to exercise the speaking gifts (tongues, prophecy, interpretation, or what have you).

When I told you that God wanted me to ask you how does a person prophecy your answer came from 1 Corinthians 14:3 which is good but lacks any sort of personal experiences or where the prophecy comes from. I was reluctant in telling you who ask me to ask you but there the matter of guarding our precious stones and there is something wrong here.

You said in the above quote that you only know a few Churches from your own personal experience and with that you blame women for not seeing more spiritually?

You've said in numerous post that you will pray about this. Has God spoke to you and if so what did he said?

You and Webb are like two moths drawn to the same flame but from what I've seen of Webb he is Church of Christ and in our area they don't believe that the spiritual gifts are for us today. I sure that's not any woman's fault.

 

[Webb]

Any one care to discuss this on the one-on-one?