Women are to be silent when the Church assembles!

[carlos123]

Hi AirDancer.

Thanks very much for your participation in this discussion. If the Lord has something for you to say that I can learn from I want to grow in my understanding of this issue.

A couple of questions and comments if I might...

I use Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (BAG) for the Greek lexicon used. According to BAG, the use of the word ‘silent’ is sigao
...
Sigao only occurs eight other times in the NT.

While I agree that the underlying Greek word used is Sigao (or σιγάω) in 1 Cor 14:34 I do not understand the discrepancy between the count of this word in the New Testament that you indicate as eight times while Strong's indicates that this word is used 14 times in 10 different verses (I was mistaken previously where I said it was used in 14 different verses...it was actually 14 times not verses).

Do you know why there might be that discrepancy?

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.

I agree with you that the silence commanded by Paul is a limited silence in that I do not believe he meant to say that women could say nothing at all during a meeting of the church in an absolute sense.

Meaning not a single word, ever, to anyone, at any time during the entire meeting.

Rather I believe Paul's command has to do with not speaking out publicly as one's that are gifted would do in exercising their spiritual gift.

That is the contrast of Paul's command.

Between those that are gifted and speak out publicly to the church and the women who are commanded to not do so.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

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.

I must respectfully disagree AirDancer.

I have read through each of your posts and will read through them again but you have a certain degree of assumption and extrapolation in them to arrive at a point which I do not believe is supported by the text.

I will post snippets of what you said to show why I believe that is the case momentarily (I can't really do it in this little box the forum provides and must copy and paste in a text editor first before posting).

Carlos

 

[AirDancer]

Carlos:

You wrote: "hile I agree that the underlying Greek word used is Sigao (or σιγάω) in 1 Cor 14:34 I do not understand the discrepancy between the count of this word in the New Testament that you indicate as eight times while Strong's indicates that this word is used 14 times in 10 different verses (I was mistaken previously where I said it was used in 14 different verses...it was actually 14 times not verses).

Do you know why there might be that discrepancy? "

The error was on my part... I'm dislexic with numbers, and since I did not include all references, I inaccurately posted. This, however, does not invalidate Scripture.

 

[AirDancer]

I must respectfully disagree AirDancer.

I have read through each of your posts and will read through them again but you have a certain degree of assumption and extrapolation in them to arrive at a point which I do not believe is supported by the text.

I will post snippets of what you said to show why I believe that is the case momentarily (I can't really do it in this little box the forum provides and must copy and paste in a text editor first before posting).

Carlos

I must respectfully disagree with your position, Carlos. I neither assume nor extrapolate .... my position has been the result of much study of the Bible, as well as the blessings over the years to have various church leaders neither added to nor subtracted from what the Bible says.

- AD

 

[carlos123]

AirDancer,

While I agree with much of what you said in your posts they also contain some assumptions and extrapolations that lead to your conclusion. A conclusion that I do not believe is supported by the text.

Here are some of those assumptions and extrapolations.

You say....

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.

How we use the word "quiet" today should not enter into a discussion of how Paul used the word. To do so is to extrapolate or project on to what Paul said a meaning that he may not have intended.

Regardless if we use the phrase "Be quiet" to those in a meeting of any kind it is generally true that we do not mean to say that no one can speak publicly any longer or at all. However if one were to say that "Children are not allowed to speak in a meeting" there would be no problem in understanding that to mean that children cannot speak in the meeting. Not in an absolute sense as in not saying a single solitary word ever during the meeting to their parents or someone else but in a public way. In other words they are not allowed to speak out publicly.

Paul is speaking with respect to what women are allowed to do in a meeting of the Church. Women are not allowed to speak out publicly in a meeting of the Church.

"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. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

This is not talking about just not speaking while someone else is trying to say something. This is talking about keeping silent. Staying in a state of not speaking out. So much so that Paul says they are not permitted to do so and that if they have a desire to question or otherwise interact and engage in conversation about what is happening in the meeting that they are to wait until they get home whereupon they can ask their husbands.

If this was just about staying quiet while someone else spoke until they in turn could speak, why the admonition to wait until they get home to ask their husbands about something that happened in the meeting?

This is not just about maintaining a state of "respectful silence required for unhindered public speaking" for such would also apply to the men. In that men would not be able to blurt out whatever it is they wanted to say whenever they wanted to say it either.

Women are commanded to be silent in an assembly of the church as an expression of their submission. That is expressly something that applies to them and not to men. Maintaining a state of respectful silence so that others might have a chance to say something is all well and good but has nothing to do with being a unique expression of submission that applies only to the women.

You say...

Instead, we use the word to bring order to a noisy crowd, and to request that disruptive speech and chattering stop.

Again we cannot project on Paul what may be a common use of the phrase "Be Quiet" today. That we use the phrase "Be Quiet" in the sense that you describe it is a given but the use of this phrase is not always intended, even today, to bring order to a noisy crowd, or request that disruptive speech or chattering stop. At times it is used to set the ground rule for how a particular set of individuals, such as children, are to behave in a meeting as in that they, children, must be quiet during the entire meeting.

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.

I have not looked at each of the other verses in detail AirDancer so I cannot say with certainty that such is the case but even if it is...one cannot definitively conclude from that Paul's use of the word in 1 Cor 14:34 is used in the same sense.

The context of 1 Cor 14:34 does not bear that out.

Paul would not have said what he said in such a strong way if he had simply been referring to the need to be quiet to allow for someone else to say something.

He said "...it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

What is so improper about a woman speaking in turn to say something while remaining quiet during such a time as someone else may be speaking? It isn't. There is nothing improper about it. Paul was not saying that it is improper to speak when someone else is speaking for such would have applied to men as well as women. His commands single out the women in particular to be silent. They apply only to the women. The impropriety of speaking out is only applicable to the women.

And he says that it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

How do you explain the impropriety of such if what Paul is referring to is only that silence required to allow someone else to speak at any point in time AirDancer?

You say...

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.

You cannot assume that because Paul did not use that word that he did not mean for women to not speak out publicly in an assembly of the church.

Again the context trumps any assumptions about what Paul may have meant by his particular use of a word.

The use of siopao elsewhere and the use of sigao as used by Paul do not in any way negate the idea of Paul saying that women are to keep silent during an assembly of the church and not speak out publicly.

You say...

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€

Again you make an assumption consistent with your understanding of the rest of the New Testament and superimpose that assumption on what Paul said. In other words in view of your understanding of what being priests before God is all about...Paul could not have possibly meant that women were not to speak out publicly in a gathering of the church...therefore...that's not what he meant.

That is nothing less than interpretation by assumption.

Forgive me AirDancer but that is no way to correctly interpret what is written. Rather that is a surefire way to end up with all kinds of convoluated interpretations that do not rest on what is actually written but on whatever assumptions we may have about what is written.

Why is it not just as difficult to reconcile the idea that men are to exercise headship and authority over their wives based on the idea that women are also priests before God? Yet...that is what the New Testament says. Or women not being allowed to be church leaders (i.e. pastors) unless you think they can be.

Again we cannot correctly interpret the Bible based on assumptions about what it says. Rather we are to try and understand what it does say and orient our beliefs around that. Without bias.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

Carlos:

You wrote: "hile I agree that the underlying Greek word used is Sigao (or σιγάω) in 1 Cor 14:34 I do not understand the discrepancy between the count of this word in the New Testament that you indicate as eight times while Strong's indicates that this word is used 14 times in 10 different verses (I was mistaken previously where I said it was used in 14 different verses...it was actually 14 times not verses).

Do you know why there might be that discrepancy? "

The error was on my part... I'm dislexic with numbers, and since I did not include all references, I inaccurately posted. This, however, does not invalidate Scripture.

No biggie. An honest mistake. I too made a mistaken in saying that the word was used in 14 verses when it was actually used 14 times in 10 verses.

Your right of course in saying that such a mistake does not automatically invalidate any of what you said to whatever degree it has merit.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

Paul says women are not to have authority over men in the church.

True.

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.

To say that because Paul states in Timothy that women are not to have authority over men in the church that he is thus speaking about that in 1 Cor 14:34 and not about women being silent in the church is...well...no disrespect intended...but complete conjecture and assumption.

To say that 1 Cor 14:34 is referring to women speaking authoritatively in the church setting is again an assumption.

The text does not bear that assumption out.

There is nothing in the text about authority anything.

We cannot and should not interpret the Bible based on assumptions or conjecture. We should stick to what is written and trying to understand what is written.

Too many Christians go all over the place in the New Testament, find this or that verse that says this or that thing, and then come back to verses under discussion and superimpose what those other verses say on the one's being looked at.

That's no way to correctly interpret the Bible and leads to the 1001 different beliefs that Christians have fallen into and to disputes and arguments and useless bickering over improper interpretations.

We should take into account what others verses say. Absolutely. But not jump to the conclusion that just because this or that other verse says this or that, that the one's we are discussing MUST mean that as well.

Carlos

 

[woodlandapple]

Hi Carlos,
Im glad you agree Im correct in my use of σιγάω It means my Greek bible is right ; P


Please, I am not trying to show disrespect here,

It is hard to discuss Greek grammer with someone who doesnt understand Greek.

Keeping that in mind it is not accurate to talk about the verb σιγάω
but rather the FORM that it takes, and its important to not confuse it with the nounsigh which actually does mean silence.


You state you are focusing on the greek words here, and not the english, yet you havnt actually focused on any of the greek, but rather its dictionary form.


And to add more confusion to the mix my lexicon states that this verb is only found 9 times, and only used in the sense of not speaking 3 times.



In Greek there are plenty of ways for the Author to express 'silence', none of which he uses, rather he opts for a rare form of a word which meaning has ambiguity. There would be a reason for this.



Please allow me to now discuss the two verses you have used (i apologies I dont have any time to translate so I am only going to offer breif remarks on how these do/dont relate to 14:34):


1 Cor 14:28
This verse in particular is noted for its use of a negative (the word not) In greek a sentance is made negative by the placing of the word "not" (or similar) in the sentance, very similar to a not joke. eg. When John the baptist exclaims 'I am not the messiah' The Greek reads "I am the messiah, not"


The Author is clearly demonstrating that in this case that this person/people are not to do something, while in 14:24 the Author is not expressing this.



1 Cor 14:30
again has a negaitve word, this time 'but' (this does not work the same way as 'not') and I need to point out, as you paraphrase does also, that this verse is not a command to be quite blanketly, but a command to be quite when it is someone elses turn.


Your paraphrase of 14:24, at the end when you say "as an expression of submission." well, thats not found in the Greek at all. That comes from your interpretation of the text, and your own bias.

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.

I am assuming you will address this in time, but I need to refer you back to my previous post where I demonstrate where in the Bible Paul encourages Women to speak out, and examples of where God as used Females in this role too.

[qoute]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. [/quote]


opinions are always going to be personal, I still stand by my claim, I stand by my translation, and I still believe this is the most accurrate way of looking at this verb in this sentence. And I beleive I have demonstrated it.

I want to add also, you have yet to add any proof of your opinion, only rejected mine.

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.

again you are ignoring all the places where the Bible tells us otherwise. you are ingnoring the context of the letter and you have yet to grasp the naunces of the greek (though again I hope you are getting to them when you address them in my op)




Blessings


Jono

 

[Jethro Bodine]

To say that 1 Cor 14:34 is referring to women speaking authoritatively in the church setting is again an assumption.

The text does not bear that assumption out.

There is nothing in the text about authority anything.

I pointed out that vs. 36 shows us that Paul is questioning the authority of the women who are speaking in these meetings:

36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? (1 Cor. 14:36 NASB)

 

[Stormcrow]

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.

In his letters to the Corinthians - as was the case in all his letters - Paul was addressing specific problems facing specific congregations. One of the biggest problems he addressed with them was chaos in their gatherings! (This is born out in other passages from I Corinthians.)

They were drinking the sacramental wine like it was happy hour on a Friday afternoon, they were shouting in tongues at the top of their lungs (probably to get noticed that they were "gifted"), and the Gentile believers were eating meat sacrificed to idols! Their gatherings were a chaotic mess and those from the outside who would come into them were probably instantly turned off by the whole affair!

It's in this context that Paul is not just taking women to task for their disorderly conduct, BUT EVERYONE IN THE CHURCH WHO WAS BEHAVING THIS WAY! That's the broader picture that's being addressed here!

Women were singled out because it was the culture of that day - in a purely patriarchal society - that husbands were the lord of their wives! Try pulling that kind of rank today and you're liable to get a rolling pin upside the head!

Now, if your church doesn't have these problems, these passages simply don't apply to your church!

And one more thing:

Paul also wrote that husbands are to love their wives and sacrifice for them as Christ did for the church. And he wrote that they are to submit one to another, putting to the lie this idea that this passage in first Corinthians in any way justifies a man telling his wife (or any woman) to "sit down and shut up!"

 

[carlos123]

Im glad you agree Im correct in my use of σιγάω It means my Greek bible is right ; P

I do not believe I ever said I agree in your interpretation of that word as meaning silence only in the sense of not disrupting the meeting (as it being okay to speak in a non-disruptive way or being okay to speak later when someone else has had the chance to speak).

Such a meaning completely contradicts what Paul says about women not speaking out in church.

Please, I am not trying to show disrespect here,

It is hard to discuss Greek grammer with someone who doesnt understand Greek.

You may well know Greek better than me AirDancer but nothing you have said so far about this or that Greek nuance or word has made the case for Paul not meaning to say exactly what it says in the text.

That women are to be silent during an assembly of the church. And silent in a unique way that does not apply to the men for the duration of said meeting.

Greek or not you have not addressed some of the points I brought up that undermine your interpretation.

If your interpretation is correct...that the silence Paul commands is only a silence of the kind that is temporary and only lasts as long as someone else is speaking after which point a woman could herself speak out...(correct me if my understanding of your interpretation is incorrect)...

- why does Paul tell women to ask their husbands at home if they want to learn something? I mean if their silence is only to be polite to others who are speaking why the need to be silent with their questions until they get home?

- what does the silence commanded of women, if that silence is only a polite type of silence that is not meant to keep them from speaking out during the course of a whole meeting, have to do with submission? The type of silence you are describing is a kind that would be required of men too (in the sense that they too would have to likewise be politely quiet during someone else's talking) yet Paul's admonition for women to be silent is directly tied to their need to be submissive. A requirement that is not put upon the men. It is unique to women. How does that unique command for women in particular to be quiet fit with your interpretation?

- why Paul's fuss about the silence that he commands of women being the norm across the churches of the New Testament? I mean if the silence is only of a kind that would involve being politely quiet while someone else is talking why the need to point out that such was practiced throughout the churches and that anyone who is spiritual and gifted as a prophet should recognize that what he has said is the Lord's command? Isn't that a bit much to support the notion that women should be quiet only in the sense of being polite in not interrupting others?

- if your interpretation is correct...what is so improper about speaking out on the part of women? Paul says it is improper for women to speak out in church. If Paul meant for women to simply not speak when someone else was speaking such that they could then speak when the first person finished what would have been so improper about them speaking out in turn?

You are not addressing these issues AirDancer and helping me see how what is said in the text fits your interpretation.

Instead you are making assumptions about what Paul says based on verses elsewhere in the Bible, making assumptions about what Paul's use of the word he used for silence means based on a modern day meaning of the phrase to "be quiet". Making assumptions about Paul's use of the word translated as silent based on how it is used elsewhere in the New Testament while ignoring the context in which it is used in 1 Cor 14 (no use elsewhere negates the possibility that Paul meant for women to be silent throughout the meeting of the church in the sense of not speaking out).

I am more than willing to acknowledge the rightness of your interpretation if you can give me something more substantive than your assumptions.

Based on what the text actually says in context.

I would appreciate your addressing the points I brought up above. Points which seriously undermine your interpretation and don't fit with it. I cannot embrace your interpretation as even plausible without an explanation of how it fits with what is written in the immediate context of what Paul said.

Again where does submission fit into your interpretation? Why were the women singled out to be quiet while the men were allowed to speak openly and freely? Why were the women told to ask their husbands about things at home and not in the meeting? Why did Paul make mention of his command for women to be quiet in church meetings as being the practice in all the New Testament churches as being something that was uniquely applicable to the women?

Your interpretation does not fit the text AirDancer. I don't see how it can.

But I remain open to hearing your explanation of how it fits in light of the questions I have raised.

You say that I have offered no proof for my interpretation yet the proof I have offered is nothing less than what is plainly written by Paul. It falls on you to prove that the plain meaning of what Paul said is not really what he meant to say. In context and based on what is said. Not based on assumptions, Greek nuances that could go either way and are in no sense definitive among Greek scholars as pointing to the one correct and indisputable interpretation, or based on a bunch of verses that say this or that elsewhere which may or may not point to what Paul meant to say.

I don't need to prove that the plain meaning of what Paul said is exactly what he meant to say. That is a given barring any reason to believe otherwise...which reason I do not as yet see from your explanation.

Carlos

PS. I forgot one other point that I just added.

 

[carlos123]

I pointed out that vs. 36 shows us that Paul is questioning the authority of the women who are speaking in these meetings:

36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? (1 Cor. 14:36 NASB)

Forgive me Jethro but vs 36 says no such thing.

Here is the passage in context...(from the NASB)

1 Cor 14:34-38

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. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Paul commands that women are to keep silent during assemblies of the church. That they are not permitted to speak and they are to subject themselves in that way.

That if they want to learn something they are to wait until they get home at which time they can ask their husbands about whatever they want.

That it is improper for a woman to speak out in a church gathering.

At which point he then asks "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?"

Paul is not addressing the usurption of men's authority by women by asking this and his question has nothing at all to do with authority.

Rather he is asking the Corinthians whether they know better than anyone else about how to properly conduct themselves in a church gathering as might have been the case if they had been the one's who originated the word of God or to whom the Word came uniquely.

It's a rhetorical set of questions in that the obvious answer is that no, they do not know better than anyone else and in this case Paul as to how to best conduct themselves in meetings and even more specifically as to how women should conduct themselves.

That is what he is getting at Jethro. Again nothing about authority at all in there.

I mean you can believe that if you like but it's just not there. You are superimposing a meaning on to the text that is simply not warranted by what is said.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

In his letters to the Corinthians - as was the case in all his letters - Paul was addressing...

Thanks for your added explanation Stormcrow. I appreciate that.

If I may ask...what connection is there between Paul's command for women to not speak out in an assembly of the church and their submission?

If Paul singled out the command to the women as a purely cultural thing that was applicable only to that time does that mean that women are to no longer be submissive?

If women are no longer required to remain silent during the course of a church gathering and if submissiveness is still required of them how exactly are they to express that submission in a church gathering today?

Carlos

 

[JMJ]

1 Corinthians 14:34 NKJV
Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.

Only men could be priests under the OC. Jesus carried on that same male law/tradition in His NC. Men have authority given to them by God to preach His word in church. Women prepared the altar linens and other things for the worship service, but they did not preach the gospel in church.

Women are allowed to teach others what they have been taught by the men who are in authority over them:

2 Timothy 1:5 NKJV
when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also.


1 Corinthians 11:5-10... (NKJV)
5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.........

In other words:

Women wore elaborate hair styles in biblical times. These hairstyles and the women who wore them were distractions to everyone in church, including the men in authority. Everyone should have been worshiping God in church instead of noticing how all the other persons were attired. That is why women were told to cover their heads in church. However, as time went by, the head coverings evolved from modest veils to very fancy hats and thereby became the distraction.

The original reason for the head coverings is no longer valid. The church no longer requires head coverings for women and this falls under the binding and loosing powers of church leadership.

Matthew 18:18 NKJV
“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

1 Corinthians 11:10 NKJV
For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Even the seraphim, the most beautiful angels of all, cover their faces as they serve God so as to not be a distraction to other worshipers:

Isaiah 6:2 NKJV
Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.

 

[Stormcrow]

If I may ask...what connection is there between Paul's command for women to not speak out in an assembly of the church and their submission?

The verse you keep citing makes it clear:

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 (ESV)

The law is no longer in effect and had no bearing on Gentiles anyway. It's clear by his use of the word "saints" here, Paul was addressing Jewish believers. But that is a more nuanced discussion not fit for this topic.


Now I'm curious: why do you want women to "keep silent in church." Is there a problem you have with women speaking in your church? Or do you just have a problem with women in general?

 

[Tina]

Can I at least send text message if I need to talk to someone in church ? :bicker

 

[Stormcrow]

Can I at least send text message if I need to talk to someone in church ?

SSHHHH!!! THE MEN ARE TALKING NOW!!!

 

[handy]

Carlos,

You've seem to have fixated upon one text and are not looking at the whole of what the Bible teaches us about women and how they work within the Church.

You've asked a lot of questions about how what Paul stated in Chapter 14, but seem to be forgetting to keep this instruction in context...and the context of this passage starts in Chapter 11.

Paul is specifically addressing order and decorum within the church assemblies from Chapter 11 through Chapter 14.

He starts off this part of his letter with the instruction that women are to have a symbol of authority upon their head when praying or prophesying within the assembly. He admonishes the Corinthians for how they are acting in their assemblies and he goes on to establish some basic ground rules regarding the Lord's Supper and says that he'll address "remaining matters" when he is there in person. Then he speaks of the gifts of the Spirit and how they are to be respected, all of them, within the congregation using the illustration of a physical body to point out that all gifts are equally important within the church. Apparently the Corinthians were showing a real lack of love within their assemblies, (divisions, getting drunk at the Lord's supper, others not having anything to eat, some taking pride in their gifts at the expense of others) so Paul expounds on the importance of love and how love is more important than any of the gifts. Going back to using the gifts within the assemblies, he goes on to say that desiring gifts is good, but especially to be able to prophesy.

Paul says of the gift of prophesy: Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

So this is the proper purpose and use of the gift of prophesy...to edify the church. Keep in mind, this whole discourse on church order and decorum started of with the fact that women are indeed gifted with prophesy, but should have a symbol of authority upon their head when they prophesy.

Women are gifted with prophesy. Prophesy is for the edification of the church. Women are to prophesy within the assembly but with a symbol of authority so as not to appear to usurp the men.

Women cannot prophesy if they are to keep their lips zipped.

Going back to the context of 1 Corinthians 11-14, Paul also addresses the confusion that was apparently taking place due to too many people speaking in tongues.

After the instructions to the women to have their heads covered when prophesying, after the admonishment and instructions on the Lord's Supper, after the instruction to esteem all the gifted people of the church equally, after the discourse on the importance of love and how love trumps all gifts, after the instruction that prophesy is a superior gift (a gift God gives women) and the instructions regarding tongues and the proper usage of that particular gift...then Paul goes on to instruct women "keep silent" and if they have questions, to ask their husbands at home.

If we are to believe that Paul means that women are to never speak in church, then Paul is setting himself in opposition of God Himself, who gifts His daughters with prophesy. Something Paul obviously would never do, especially since he shows much respect to the women workers within the church, commending them by name. (Romans 16)

Therefore, there are both linguistic and contextual reasons to understand that Woodlandapple and AirDancer's explanations of σιγάω are indeed correct.


This is something that no one can get around... Prophesy if for the edification of the body and women are gifted with prophesy. Therefore women most assuredly can speak within the Church, but are to show proper respect for authority when doing so, and not just to babble on about things.

 

[Ace1234]

I think it is correct to remember Paul dealt within the different cultures of people, their laws, traditions, etc.. We must remember women were still considered the property of the man then, had no real legal rights, education, etc...Simply, the man ruled in all things.

Getting women to remain silent today....HAHAHAHA, we would have to bring back legal beheadings.

 

[woodlandapple]

I do not believe I ever said I agree in your interpretation of that word as meaning silence only in the sense of not disrupting the meeting (as it being okay to speak in a non-disruptive way or being okay to speak later when someone else has had the chance to speak).

I was actually referring to the verb itself not its definition.

Such a meaning completely contradicts what Paul says about women not speaking out in church.

Well, no. Because it is actually what Paul said. It only contradicts your beliefs.

You may well know Greek better than me AirDancer but nothing you have said so far about this or that Greek nuance or word has made the case for Paul not meaning to say exactly what it says in the text.

Your getting people mixed up. I'm woodlandapple

And I have explained in detail to show what the text is saying, and why it is translated the way it is. I also demonstrated the reasons why this use is different to others in the same passage. I have also given examples on reasons why your translation of the passage is innacurate.

That women are to be silent during an assembly of the church. And silent in a unique way that does not apply to the men for the duration of said meeting.

The verse does not say this. This is your opinion on what it says. And again this interpretation contradicts several other passages (refer to my last two posts) that Paul writes

Greek or not you have not addressed some of the points I brought up that undermine your interpretation.

I will try my best, having said that you still have a lot to address yourself from my first post.

If your interpretation is correct...that the silence Paul commands is only a silence of the kind that is temporary and only lasts as long as someone else is speaking after which point a woman could herself speak out...(correct me if my understanding of your interpretation is incorrect)...

My interpretation I that the women of this particular church are told to not be disruptive, not to undermine the authority of the church and to respect the law.

- why does Paul tell women to ask their husbands at home if they want to learn something? I mean if their silence is only to be polite to others who are speaking why the need to be silent with their questions until they get home?

So they are not seen arguing with their husbands in public, undermining the family.

- what does the silence commanded of women, if that silence is only a polite type of silence that is not meant to keep them from speaking out during the course of a whole meeting, have to do with submission? The type of silence you are describing is a kind that would be required of men too (in the sense that they too would have to likewise be politely quiet during someone else's talking) yet Paul's admonition for women to be silent is directly tied to their need to be submissive. A requirement that is not put upon the men. It is unique to women. How does that unique command for women in particular to be quiet fit with your interpretation?

No, it is not directly tied to submission. Nowhere does the text state this. The text refers to respecting the law, which refers to genesis and the specific gender roles. I have already pointed this out. And yet even of submission is what Paul is referring to- submission does not mean being a doormat. Refer to the last passage in psalms to see how God portrays a woman of noble character and you will see a leader with authority, who still respects gender roles. The women of this church have an issue with undermining authority which is why Paul addressed only women. Again. You need to read the context. Paul is not making a statment he is providing a particular solution to a particular problem.

- why Paul's fuss about the silence that he commands of women being the norm across the churches of the New Testament? I mean if the silence is only of a kind that would involve being politely quiet while someone else is talking why the need to point out that such was practiced throughout the churches and that anyone who is spiritual and gifted as a prophet should recognize that what he has said is the Lord's command? Isn't that a bit much to support the notion that women should be quiet only in the sense of being polite in not interrupting others?

Paul is only addressing the churches in Corinth.

Paul is demonstrating the ideals of a well organised and orderly service. Which will be the result if the churches of Corinth would stop being uncivil, and the women stop being argumentative.

I think you are underestimating the impact that bickering and fighting can have on a church community. I think it's a bit much to assume that Paul is telling women in the whole world should stay silent in order to combat the problems faced by one city of beleivers.

-if your interpretation is correct...what is so improper about speaking out on the part of women? Paul says it is improper for women to speak out in church. If Paul meant for women to simply not speak when someone else was speaking such that they could then speak when the first person finished what would have been so improper about them speaking out in turn?

again you underestimate the power of a good argument. Especially when it was consistently happening in a church. It was certainly a big enough problem in corenth if Paul had to write them a letter to help control it.

You are not addressing these issues AirDancer and helping me see how what is said in the text fits your interpretation.

I am doing nothing but address your issues, while you do nothing about addressing mine.

Instead you are making assumptions about what Paul says based on verses elsewhere in the Bible, making assumptions about what Paul's use of the word he used for silence means based on a modern day meaning of the phrase to "be quiet".

where are you getting this from? I am basing my meaning from the Greek text, and basing my translation from the Greek grammar. I would suggest that the bible you are reading, and the words in it are far more modern than mine. Seeing as I am actually reading the Greek.

Making assumptions about Paul's use of the word translated as silent based on how it is used elsewhere in the New Testament while ignoring the context in which it is used in 1 Cor 14 (no use elsewhere negates the possibility that Paul meant for women to be silent throughout the meeting of the church in the sense of not speaking out).

this just demonstrates your ignorance on how the process of translation into English actually works.
You speak of context yet completely ignore it yourself. I'm still waiting for you to address this.

I am more than willing to acknowledge the rightness of your interpretation if you can give me something more substantive than your assumptions.

well I guess your assumptions must clearly be true then.

But of course my assumptions are based on the full time application of masters level study of Koine Greek and Christian theology. What would I know on the subject of translating Greek?

Based on what the text actually says in context.

I've done nothing but this.

I would appreciate your addressing the points I brought up above. Points which seriously undermine your interpretation and don't fit with it. I cannot embrace your interpretation as even plausible without an explanation of how it fits with what is written in the immediate context of what Paul said.

points addressed, none undermining though. Again, I think you have to answe for context much more than I do.

Again where does submission fit into your interpretation? Why were the women singled out to be quiet while the men were allowed to speak openly and freely? Why were the women told to ask their husbands about things at home and not in the meeting?

a woman arguing opening with her husband disrupts Gods designed gender roles. Women where singled out as the specific instigators to a specific problem, a woman can question [argue] with her husband in private but It is not recommended in public. Paul is asking the women of this church to stop arguing and to start learning.

Why did Paul make mention of his command for women to be quiet in church meetings as being the practice in all the New Testament churches as being something that was uniquely applicable to the women?

again, Paul is only talking to the Corinthians. It is the ideal practice in all churches for there to be no arguing, fighting or general disorder. Paul is highlighting the goal. Uniquely applicable because it was a specific problem caused by the specific women of the specific church at that specific time (I'm not sure how else I can emphasis context)

Your interpretation does not fit the text AirDancer. I don't see how it can.

yes it does. And it also fits the interpretation clearly given by the dozen text books in front of me as it also fits the original text in Greek. What it doesn't fit is your bias, and your interpretation that has risen from it.

But I remain open to hearing your explanation of how it fits in light of the questions I have raised.

considering your instant dismissal of any thought other than your own. I have trouble believing this.

You say that I have offered no proof for my interpretation yet the proof I have offered is nothing less than what is plainly written by Paul.

so why do you plainly ignore when paul encourages women to speak out in chirch, a d when he encourages specific female church leaders ?

It falls on you to prove that the plain meaning of what Paul said is not really what he meant to say.

i i say i have done that, at the very least I have shown enought that it causes doubt as to the intentions of Paul.

In context and based on what is said. Not based on assumptions, Greek nuances that could go either way and are in no sense definitive among Greek scholars as pointing to the one correct and indisputable interpretation, or based on a bunch of verses that say this or that elsewhere which may or may not point to what Paul meant to say.

As a Greek scholar, I could suggest that you don't actually know know what we are saying. What I am going to say is that Paul definatly does not use the word silent in this verse. These Nuances is what gives Greek it's meaning. Greek is not the sledgehammer language that English is. A plain reading is often wrong.

I don't need to prove that the plain meaning of what Paul said is exactly what he meant to say.

and I have demonstrated that your plain interpretation is not what Paul actually said, and a plain interpretation contradicts what the bible teaches us elsewhere. The onus is on you to justify your interpretation.

That is a given barring any reason to believe otherwise...which reason I do not as yet see from your explanation.

please look harder and maybe get rid of the assumption that you are automatically right?

Carlos

PS. I forgot one other point that I just added.

Blessings

Jono




Edit: I'm not sure why the quote boxes arnt working *Quote boxes fixed* Correct coding is [ / quote ] not [ \ quote] ;)