Women are to be silent when the Church assembles!

[carlos123]

Carlos be sure to wear your sandals.

I appreciate your encouragement to be Jesus like in my dress Reba ;) but...well...you still have not told me what you think Paul was saying when he stated that women should be silent in an assembly of the Church.

I am particularly interested in hearing your take on what is written Reba. I mean if you care to share your take on this.

Carlos

 

[Stormcrow]

silence as an expression of submission is a cultural matter and not something that is applicable today.

Because we don't treat women like chattel. If you want to find groups that do, visit a Mosque or an Amish/Mennonite church. I think you'll find those groups sufficiently stuck in the past regarding their treatment of women.

I think it helps when we determine to stick to a discussion of what is written with a view to understanding what is written...as written.

Good. Then you'll appreciate the fact that it wasn't written to us, but to a people who lived half a world away some 2,000 years ago.

Moving on...

 

[MithrandirOlorin]

This comes from Women being more inclined then Men to blurt things out during the service.

It applies only to the Audience, your not gonna convince Women can't be Preachers, the Preacher is the NT equivalent to the office of the Prophet, there where 6 female Prophets recorded in the Bible. Priscilla was usually lsited before Aquilla.

 

[handy]

Carlos,

I appreciate that you're coming at this in a spirit of learning, rather than pushing a preconceived opinion.

While looking at 1 Corinthians 11, look closely at verses 17 and 18. I think this makes it evident that Paul is indeed speaking of when the church is assembled when giving instruction regarding praying and prophesying.

He gives the instruction that the women should cover their heads, then goes on to say, "But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it."

These statements clearly set the context of the instruction to when they are assembled.

 

[handy]

Excellent post, Woodlandapple!

 

[Stormcrow]

I see an awful lot of 2-eyed, 2-handed literalists running around these days. I wonder why the Bible is always taken more literally when it applies to someone else.

 

[handy]

Well, Stormcrow...

There are times when the bible does indeed speak literally.

Frankly, I think Paul was speaking literally here...but within a certain context.

We do need to remember that the source of the text was a personal letter, written by Paul in response to some specific issues.

I do believe that when the church at Corinth received Paul's letter...the women did shush, listen and learn...

But, I also believed as this very young and eager church continued to grow, if women recieved a prophesy, they would share it (well, they would have to, wouldn't they. Otherwise they would be false prophets!) They most likely had their head covered as they did so (in keeping with what was considered respectful). I'm sure that they also prayed, as well as lifted their voices in song.

But, the instruction about the silence (and I think Woodlandapple explained that so very well) was most likely taken to heart and some of the chaos that characterized that wild and wooly church abated.

How does it apply today? I do think that there are real applications. I do think the letter to the Corinthians provides us with a clear understanding that our worship services should be very orderly, no one shouting out and not a lot of babbling. And, I do believe that many churches aren't following through on this.

As for the women... women today, after 2 millennia of Christian influence, hold a much more equitable position in society and we have a vastly different culture.

The head-covering would more likely be an affront to unbelievers. (Not wearing one was an affront to the unbelievers back then.) Also, we are more apt to recognize that God gifts us women for ministry, just as He does men.

I do believe though that we shouldn't ignore the principles that Paul touched on. There are different roles within the Body for men and for women, and I believe that God desires us to maintain this. I do believe that a wife should be subject to her husband and that the ultimate leadership roles in the churches should be male. But, it's a foolish husband who doesn't recognize and utilize his wife's wisdom and abilities, and it's a foolish church that doesn't make use of all that God gifts to all within the Body for ministry.

 

[ivorhughjarse]

Agreed.

Where does it say that Paul's statement was directed at mouthy women?

Carlos

Knowing the depth of the Lord can never happen if we think only inside of the box the actual words that are written in those early years. God's word is to be enjoyed and is full of hidden depths that no man can exhaust and we will never know Him closely unless we let the word of God speak to us in context of the whole book. Most things are principles so that even in the modern world we will understand what is required of us. Or we can strain out the gnat and gulp down the camel

The Muslims have the same problem that you have...to live to the letter of the Koran they must turn the whole world back to the 8th century when their religion was invented

 

[Justice]

While I do not hold out much hope that Christians will come to agreement on what is written (given that such rarely if ever happens...a truly disgraceful state of affairs) I believe there is some profit in discussing this issue yet once more and engaging with those of you who might be willing to discuss it on this thread.

With that in mind here is are the relevant verses I would like to focus on...

From the New American Standard Bible (though all modern translations say essentially the same thing):



The KJV starts out by saying "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak;".

The Amplified Bible says "The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak".

The New International Readers Version says "As in all the churches of God's people, women should remain silent in the meetings. They are not allowed to speak."

It was the practice throughout the New Testament churches that women were not permitted to speak out in the assembly of the Church. This wasn't just for Corinth but a practice that was present throughout the Churches.

That is what the Word says and says clearly.

There can be no ambiguity about this. To speak is to utter a statement publicly (the context of Paul's statements in the whole of Chapter 14 is talking about speaking publicly to the Church by way of prophecy, revelation, tongues, interpretation and other such gifts).

Just as those speaking in tongues must keep silent (i.e not speak) if there is no interpreter present so too women must not speak out in an assembly of the Church.

Just as prophets must stop prophesying and be silent and allow one who has been given a revelation to speak out so too women must be silent in an assembly of the Church and not speak out.

Silent means silent and to not speak means exactly that.

The conjecture that people embrace to negate what Paul said and said clearly absolutely amazes me.

Carlos

1 Corinthians 14: 35-36
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?

Carlos, does the word of God come out of you and to you only? I'm sure that God's word does not come from and to husbands only otherwise Paul would not have ask these questions right after verse 35. Gotcha verses make other verses easy to over look.

That is what the Word says and says clearly

 

[Stormcrow]

There are times when the bible does indeed speak literally.
Frankly, I think Paul was speaking literally here...but within a certain context.

I agree. That wasn't my point.

 

[Timf]

Carlos,

I appreciate your courage in bringing up this subject. It is sad how often Christians are attacked by other Christians for speaking truth. It is especially sad to see how a "moderator" uses sarcasm to try to beat down opinions that are undesired. I also appreciate your response.

We live in a culture that has a very different perspective than the entire world did up until 100-200 years ago. Now everything taught in school and on TV is presented in a Marxist framework (who are the exploited and who are the exploiters).

Hudson Taylor upon seeing how the Chinese lived over 100 years ago remarked that he thought English women did not appreciate how much their lot in life was due to Christianity.

The introduction of Christianity was a boon to women in that they were for the first time treated with respect, honor, and cherished. With the introduction of Marxism and Feminism, women were told that they were really exploited and that they needed to throw off their shackles.

Women did not get the right to vote, men lost the right to represent their families. This is a key perspective because modern life is one continuous assault on the family. Today four people live together almost as roommates each with their own life and friends and each going in their own direction. Most still call this a "family". It is only a sad echo of the past.

In the past, when families were important, husbands, like today, were frequently indifferent to their responsibility to lead in their home. The admonition for women to remain silent and ask their husbands was not so much an "insult" to women, but a request to force the husbands to do their job. When women by-pass their husbands, the family is imperiled.

Today many women no longer look to their husbands for answers, leading, or much of anything other than a paycheck and maintenance work. Their employer is their provider and the government is their protector. These women are fully immersed in the artificial world Satan has created and as friends of the world are enemies of God.

The ideal Christian family is a husband and wife both growing into the full image of Christ. This Christian maturity is based on setting aside the selfishness of the flesh and being filled with the selflessness of the Spirit.

There are still Christians who seek truth. Those who mock, express indignation and outrage, and seek to silence truth, need to reflect on their own motives.

It is difficult to think of a subject more controversial. Stirring this subject does demonstrate, the extent to which those who claim Christ will not tolerate the truth of the Bible. If the Lord has led you to confront people with truth, then do so. However, when you think about how far those who claim Christ have come from His word, you may want to consider that controversy may only drive those who have drifted far from Christ even further.

Truth that is not sought is not found.

The key to helping those who are far from Christ is to encourage a heart to seek truth.

I might think Catholic doctrine has error. When I meet a Catholic I do not condemn his doctrine, but ask if his church offers a Bible study. I would encourage him to get in the word and pray that his heart would be drawn to seek truth.

I led a Bible study once where a woman asked if she should quit smoking. I told her, "I will tell you exactly what you should do". There was another woman there who had had some bad church experiences that leaned forward like she was ready to pounce. I said, "You should love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might. Then the rest will fall into place". The other woman began to slowly relax.

Birth control was once an anathema to Christians. Now Most Christians not only accept but practice it. Feminism was once an anathema to Christians. Now most hold it as a doctrine. Christianity has been taken into the world and is even now on the brink of considering homosexuality as an acceptable form of "family".

When you raise the subject of truth from the Bible, the unsaved will just laugh at you. However, there are many like the Pharisees that will seek to silence you.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

For those who seek to hear only what makes them feel good, there is no hope. For those who still seek truth, make it a focus in prayer to ask the Lord for discernment and wisdom. A humble heart still seeks truth.

 

[carlos123]

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

For those who seek to hear only what makes them feel good, there is no hope. For those who still seek truth, make it a focus in prayer to ask the Lord for discernment and wisdom. A humble heart still seeks truth.

Thanks very much for your encouraging words Tim (well...at least I took them that way though some may not view them as such I suppose).

It has been a burden of my heart for years to approach the Bible with integrity where I will not compromise what it says and will endeavour to speak the truth as God gives me understanding to know it.

Unfortunately that has also cost me...big time.

Despite my best efforts I simplay cannot fit into modern churches. I am not allowed to speak the truth to others within churches for it might cause division (given that most all churches do not practice the truth that God has laid on my heart to share with others).

One church leader came to see that I could not in good conscience keep my mouth shut about things that the Lord Himself was laying on my heart and admitted that I had a valid and acceptable reason to not be involved with most churches that I have tried to be involved in.

But to get him to acknowledge that was like pulling teeth in that it took months of discussion with him over the issues before he was led to realize that. During most of that time he assumed that I was simply rebellious and unwilling to be in submission to authority within the Church.

All along he did not want me to fellowship with his church as I was an intelligent and articulate fellow who might lead others to believe things that were contrary to established church practice.

Never mind that the Bible might say this or that. Never mind that there is no liberty whatsoever biblically for denying someone fellowship based on the potential that someone might inadvertently cause division by what he shares as a sincere Christian seeking the Lord's mind on various issues.

That's how it's been for me.

One church after another. I never fit in.

I am always looking to the Word and to God and never to existing church practice or tradition.

And what I read in the Word and what the Lord leads me to understand out of it simply does not line up with existing church practice.

This isn't a matter of a simple, little, bitty seemingly unimportant and relatively insignificant obscure verse somewhere.

It's not a matter of my camping on and promoting the idea of baptizing people for the dead or insisting that the rapture will happen before or after the Tribulation.

The differences I see between present day Church practice and what the Word says we ought to be doing are radical. They go to the very core of what we are supposed to be. The differences cannot be glossed over or ignored if we are going to be true to God and to Word.

Submission and how it is to be expressed. The free operation of the gifts of the Spirit. Multiplicity of church leaders having co-equal authority (though not necessarily co-equal influence) instead of a head pastor. Even the definition of what being a church leader is (an elder vs a position that is unique and which we have come to call a Pastor). Being one in Christ and what that is all about.

There are many such things.

I don't rightly know what to do with all this except that I must exercise whatever gift I have to pass these things along to others wherever and whenever an open door presents itself for me to do so.

These things are not difficult to understand. Church leaders are not ignorant of what the Word says in these things.

There just seems to be an unwillingness on the part of Christians (or at least those who profess to be so) to apply what is written. Every excuse in the book is used to discount what the Word says. Every nuance of Greek that might point to the Word not saying what it says is embraced like one might embrace a flotation device while drowning.

If there is any drowning involved it is a drowning of the Spirit where one's extra biblical conjectures, speculations, and assumptions start to sink under the weight of truth.

But I suppose that is the way it was with Jesus and the way it will always be. In our human nature we hate God's truth and want nothing to do with it. We prefer to be religious than truly filled with faith. We prefer to hear what our itching ears want to hear than what pleases God.

That's just the way it is and I have accepted that as my lot in life.

But speak the truth I will. Wherever and however I can. For His greater honor and glory.

I cannot do otherwise.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

Because we don't treat women like chattel. If you want to find groups that do, visit a Mosque or an Amish/Mennonite church. I think you'll find those groups sufficiently stuck in the past regarding their treatment of women.


Good. Then you'll appreciate the fact that it wasn't written to us, but to a people who lived half a world away some 2,000 years ago.

Moving on...

I appreciate your input Stormcrow but you have not said one word about what Paul was instructing the Corinthians when he said that women are to remain silent when the church assembles.

Instead you have simply stated what appears to be only your personal opinions about how we ought not to treat women like chattel (I agree), that I ought to go seek what I want in church practice among the Muslims or Mennonites, that anyone advocating what I am advocating (and which the Word says by the way) is stuck in the past, and so forth.

I don't want to get into a long, drawn out discussion of personal opinion Stormcrow. I mean you have admitted that you are tired of this kind of stuff.

I do hope that you are not tired of discussing and arriving at a correct interpretation of the Word.

If that is so...then let's stick to discussing what Paul said for purposes of this thread.

What do you make of what Paul said? What did he mean when he said for women to remain silent in an assembly of the church.

I am all ears if you care to share your thoughts on that instead of sharing what amounts to little more than your personal opinion about how silly I am for promoting what the Bible seems to say so clearly.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

Knowing the depth of the Lord can never happen if we think only inside of the box the actual words that are written in those early years. ...

I certainly would not want to put God in a box IvorHughJarse (interesting name you have there!).

By all means let's not do that.

But would you have us let lose from being anchored to what the Word does say so much that all beliefs that anyone cares to have are just as legitimate as any other?

Why not rather stick to what is written and to trying to understand what the Lord's heart is regarding what He inspired the New Testament writers to say?

Leaving ourselves open to whatever additional depths and nuances of meaning the Lord leads us to see.

But any meaningful discussion of what something means in the Bible must start with what is written. With what is said and what was meant by those writing it as they attempted to pen into words what God was laying on their hearts to say.

Carlos

 

[Webb]

Hi Carlos

Check your private messages

 

[carlos123]

I'd like to respond to what you said WoodlandApple. I'll do so in separate posts dealing with one thing at a time.

All quotations unless otherwise noted are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

First up is your explanation of the word silent as used in the text.

You said...

The first thing we need to do is to look at the text.

1Cor14:34 is the main one I am looking at

the first thing I notice is that there is no negative used in this sentance. The Author does not say "dont" speak. nore does he use an adjective, decribing woman as being silent.
He uses the verb σιγάω which means I keep silence, I hold ones peace.

notice the word silence, which is different from silent.
the verb is in the 3rd person imperative present (which is quite rare)
and a wooden translation of this verb in context is
"all women in the assembly/church let them[women] keep silence/hold their peace!"
the reason why its translated as 'they should' is because this is an imperative, a command, which doesn't translate well in meaning with the English word 'let'.

The same reason as silence turns into silent, because a literal translation does not fit well in English.

In light of the greek, I find it hard to believe that the Author intends for women to say nothing at all. Rather it is a command to not squabble, interrupt, interject, take control of. To keep the silence, keep the peace.

The particular text reads...

1 Cor 14:34

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

The english word "silent" as used in that verse, as you correctly point out, is the Greek word, σιγάω

This word is G4601 in Strong's Concordance.

G4601 is found 14 times in the Greek New Testament. 13 of those times the meaning is clearly to keep quiet as in to not speak. Only once is the meaning less clear...specifically in Romans 16:25 where it talks of how the mystery of the Gospel has been kept (kept is the English translation there) secret for long ages past.

Rather than go into an all out quotation of many of not all the 13 verses where the meaning means exactly what we think being silent means today...that is to keep quiet as in not speaking, let me focus on the use of this word in chapter 14 only.

1 Cor 14:28 talks of someone who can speak in tongues having to keep quiet (i.e. not speak) if there is no interpreter present to interpret their tongues speaking.

1 Cor 14:30 talks of a prophet who is sharing a prophecy having to stop talking (or keep quiet as in no longer talk) when a revelation is given to one who is sitting down to allow the one with the revelation to then speak.

Finally 1 Cor 14:34 talks of the women in the assembly having to keep quiet (i.e. not talk) as an expression of submission.

Just as tongues speakers must keep silent and not start talking in a tongue if there is no interpreter so too must women keep silent and not talk.

Just as prophets who are speaking must start being silent (or cease from talking) when a revelation comes to one sitting down so too women in the assembly must remain silent and not speak out to allow for the men in the congregation to speak out that which God has placed on their hearts to say through their respective spiritual gifts.

I am focusing here on the meaning of the Greek word WoodlandApple and not on whatever English word it is translated into so whether the word is translated "silent" or "silence" or "kept" or whatever, matters not. It is the same underlying Greek word whose meaning I am wanting to focus on.

And the meaning of that word as used in the various verses where it is used (with the exception of the one) is quiet clear. Very clear.

It means to not speak.

Even in the one verse where such is not clear it is not anti not speaking. To keep the Gospel mystery since long ages past can be equated quite easily with keeping the tongue silent. To be quiet in other words is not different than to keep silent (or keep one's words to oneself and not utter them).

I do agree with you when you say that "In light of the greek, I find it hard to believe that the Author intends for women to say nothing at all."

I find no basis at all for believing that women are to not utter a single word at all. To remain absolutely quiet at all times and in every way and during the course of an entire meeting not say anything at all to anyone.

That would be legalistic I think.

When Paul instructed tongues speakers to not speak out if there is no interpreter I do not believe he meant to say that tongues speakers should never say anything at all at any time to anyone.

He only meant for them to be quiet regarding their tongues speaking.

When Paul instructed prophets to start being silent or to shut up, if you will, when someone received a revelation I do not believe he meant to say that those prophets were to shut up and say nothing to anyone or under any circumstances from then on in the meeting.

He only meant for them to take on silence or not speak any longer with respect to their prophecy.

So too with the women, I believe that Paul is saying that women are not allowed to speak out (as those gifted would speak out were their no restraint put on the free exercise of their gifts) publicly in the assembly.

It is publicly speaking to the congregation as a gifted person might speak out when exercising their spiritual gift that Paul denies women the opportunity to do.

You said "Rather it is a command to not squabble, interrupt, interject, take control of. To keep the silence, keep the peace."

I see no grounds in the text for believing that Paul was commanding the women to not squabble, interrupt, interject, or take control of.

Granted that not speaking would prevent any squabble at all. Likewise if one was not allowed to speak out publicly then there could be no interruption or interjection of one's thoughts into the meeting and likewise it would be near impossible to take control of a meeting without speaking out.

But these things are incidental to the very core of what Paul is commanding. That women in an assembly of the church are not to speak out as those who are gifted as tongues speakers, prophets, interpreters, or otherwise might do while exercising their spiritual gift.

It is perfectly acceptable for women to say something to their children, to their husbands in private conversation where there is a need to say something, to other women or what have you.

They just can't speak out to the assembly as a gifted person might speak with a tongue or revelation, prophecy or other gift.

Only the men are allowed to do that.

Carlos

PS. Just wanted to add that I was mistaken in saying that the Greek word found in 1 Cor 14:34 and which is translated as "silent" is used in 14 verses. It is used 14 times in 10 verses.

 

[AirDancer]

Carlos,
You have chosen one of the most controversial writings to be found in the Bible to discuss. Initially, I thought not to address the issue, as it has been much discussed and debated over the centuries. Still, when one is nudged, then prodded, then told to address an issue, one must.
It must be understood that in the early church, people met in homes. Naturally, there will be communication amongst the participants prior to the actual discourse; even after the assembly has been called together, there will be those who will conclude their conversations. It occurs even today, although it is not as common as it used to be.
Let’s discuss the issue:
I use Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (BAG) for the Greek lexicon used. According to BAG, the use of the word ‘silent’ is sigao, and can have the following meanings:
1, Be silent, keep still
2, Say nothing, keep silent
3, Stop speaking, become silent
4, Keep secret, conceal
Sigao only occurs eight other times in the NT. Aside from Paul, Luke is the only other New Testament writer who uses this word. Luke and Paul were contemporaries who spent a great deal of time in each other’s company, so it is likely that they both used the word in the same way. This means that Luke’s usage of the word can help us understand Paul’s usage of it as well.

In two verses in the NT, sigao has the meaning of, "kept secret":

Luke 9:36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

In these 2 verses, we see that sigao is a limited silence. It does not convey the idea of silence concerning all things; just silence in regard to not divulging a particular secret.

All of the other occurrences of sigao concern public assemblies, so they have great relevance to understanding the meaning of this word as it used in 1 Cor. 14:34.
Luke 20:26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.
Acts 12:17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place.
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
The last two occurrences of sigao in the NT (other than 1 Corinthians 14:34), are important to this subject, because they are in the immediate context of the verses that we are considering:
1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
1 Corinthians 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
From this complete list of all of the NT verses containing the word sigao (outside of the disputed verse), it can be concluded that Paul does not mean that a speaker in tongues or a prophet cannot address the congregation again later in the meeting. He only means that they should stop talking in a particular way.

In fact, there is nothing to indicate that that the first prophet who speaks may not give another prophecy later in the meeting. He is only instructed to be silent so that a different prophet who also receives a revelation will have the opportunity to speak.

Outside of the disputed verse, wherever sigao is used in the New Testament concerning a public meeting, it refers to the respectful silence required for unhindered public speaking. In this regard it is very similar to the English word “quiet.†When we use this word in a phrase such as “be quiet,†we usually do not mean that none of those in the audience are permitted to speak publicly. Instead, we use the word to bring order to a noisy crowd, and to request that disruptive speech and chattering stop. Outside of 1 Corinthians 14:34, that is exactly the way that sigao is used in all of the other NT passages that refer to public speech.

If, in verse 34, sigao does not only refer to being respectfully silent while someone is speaking publicly, but also to a complete ban on public speaking, then this is the only place that the word is used in such a comprehensive sense in the entire New Testament.

If Paul had wanted the women to be completely silent, there is another Greek word, siopao, that he could have used. It also means “to be silent,†but it seems to be the New Testament word of choice to indicate complete absence of speech, including public speech. Here are some instances where siopao is used in exactly that way:

Luke 1:20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Mark 3:4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

Acts 18:9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace.

So, the Greek word sigao indicates a limited, not a complete silence, and that outside of the disputed verse, it always refers to the respectful silence required for unhindered public speaking when it concerns public meetings.

To be continued:

 

[AirDancer]

Part Deux:

Furthering the discussion about women being silent in church, it has been argued that Paul did not include women when he used the word “brethren,†that he only addressed women under the headship of the men by using the word “brethren.†The problem with this is that Paul does not exclude the women in his opening address to the church:

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

This certainly includes the women. Since the letter is written to both men and women, the word “brethren,†which Paul uses quite frequently to refer to those he is writing to, obviously must include the women.

Secondly, Paul held no pause about addressing women directly, even by name, in his letters. In Philippians 4:1-3 he uses the term "my beloved brethren," and then addresses two women by name in the very next verse:

I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.

If, for purposes of headship, Paul preferred to address the women through the men, this would be an exception to that rule. He could have written, “Please beseech Euodias and Syntyche,†but instead he wrote, “I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche.â€
So, outside of the disputed verse, when the word “brethren†is used to address the church in 1 Corinthians, it always includes the women. Indeed, this deals directly to the ‘silence in church’ viewpoint: because while directly addressing the “brethren†in this passage, Paul writes, “For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.â€

4. The Corinthians were busting at the seams with spiritual gifts, and their meetings were quite disorderly and confusing.
Paul’s over-arching concern in this passage is that everything be done in an orderly and edifying way:
26c: Let all things be done for edification.
33: for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as it is in all churches of the saints.
40: Let all things be done decently and in order.
The idea of Paul commanding the women not to engage in disruptive speech fits with this.
In 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul instructs women to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying, and in 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul states that he does not allow a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man, he appeals to the created nature of men and women as justification for this. This is to be expected when we encounter a very restrictive command that deserves an explanation. But we see no such explanation here, although, if Paul were commanding the women not to speak publicly at all during the meeting, that would be a much more restrictive command. There is no attempt to explain the reasons for this command; apparently, Paul assumed that they would be obvious to his readers. The absence of such an explanation lends weight to the idea that Paul is only prohibiting disruptive speech.

Beyond the immediate context of this passage, we should also consider the context of the New Testament as well. The New Testament teaches us that in Christ there is “neither male nor female†(Gal 3:28), that men and women are “heirs together of the grace of life†(1 Peter 3:7), and that women as well as men are “priests unto God and his Father†(Revelation 1:6).

Although the New Testament clearly teaches that “the head of woman is man†(1 Cor 11:3), it also teaches “for as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman†(I Cor 11:12). Although it teaches that wives should submit themselves to their own husbands (Eph 5:22), it also teaches “Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble†(1 Peter 5:5). The idea that Paul did not permit the women to utter so much as a prophecy or a prayer in church seems very difficult to reconcile with the New Testament teaching that women are also “priests unto God.â€

It is important to keep in mind that the two of the basic guiding principles behind 1 Corinthians 14: 26-40 are found in verses 26 & 40:
26 Let all things be done unto edifying.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

"But the Lord is in His holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before Him." - Habakkuk 2:20.

 

[AirDancer]

From what I have presented, it should be noted that to state that woman should be silent at church is what should be considered as a false teaching.

What is not a false teaching is that everyone, women included, should be orderly and decent while in church (including informal settings such as home Bible studies), for who can learn when surrounded by confusion.

Peace.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm posting blind because of lack of time, but the key to what he's driving at here is vs. 36...

"As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" (1 Cor. 14:33-36 NIV1984)

Paul says women are not to have authority over men in the church. With verse 36 we see that is the issue he is addressing, not the fact that they are speaking in the church. They are speaking authoritatively in the church. That is what he forbids.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12 NIV1984)