Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Women are to be silent when the Church assembles!
- Thread starter carlos123
- Start date
woodlandapple
Member
Webb
I can point out to you places where every translation falls short.
Part of the benefits of knowing Greek is that I can refer to the original texts, and compare them too the different translations we have.
My understanding of the verse in question is based on my reading of the Greek. The Greek makes it quite clear that everything in that sentence is referring to the Corinthians a the subject of The sentence. Dismiss the NIV all you want, yet how they demonstrate this in their version is a good representation of how it's demonstrated in the Greek.
Again, I'm not suggesting that tho inspired text be dismissed as irrelevant. I'm demonstration that it need to be seen in the context it was written. Paul's main point in this is not the women at all, but rather the problem the church in corinth was facing.
I can point out to you places where every translation falls short.
Part of the benefits of knowing Greek is that I can refer to the original texts, and compare them too the different translations we have.
My understanding of the verse in question is based on my reading of the Greek. The Greek makes it quite clear that everything in that sentence is referring to the Corinthians a the subject of The sentence. Dismiss the NIV all you want, yet how they demonstrate this in their version is a good representation of how it's demonstrated in the Greek.
Again, I'm not suggesting that tho inspired text be dismissed as irrelevant. I'm demonstration that it need to be seen in the context it was written. Paul's main point in this is not the women at all, but rather the problem the church in corinth was facing.
H
Hitch
Guest
If it werent for women speaking up we might not yet understand the extent of doctrinal corruption held tightly by the Assemblies of God .
And Im still certain Tammy Faye and Eugene Scott were sibs.
And Im still certain Tammy Faye and Eugene Scott were sibs.
I really hate this topic. I do! But, I'll give my opinion so it can be bounced around and such.
There is no doubt that women played a big role in the Bible. At times, even keeping the man of God straight. I can give examples but let me skip them to get to my point.
Women aren't meant to be preachers. That's the bottom line. They can't be Apostles.... Those sent to lead a Church. God said it, not me. And Apostle is one sent by God, and he ain't ever sent a woman to be an Apostle. He never sent one to preach either.
He sent plenty of women to read letters to Churches from Apostles and preachers. He even had some be judges, teachers and helps. But they aren't to be in leadership.
All of what Paul talked about when he discussed the roll of a husband and wife was about the Church. Jesus is the Husband, and we, the Church are the wife. We do what he wants, not the other way around!
I honestly can't say they aren't talented enough. But that is the way it is.
There is no doubt that women played a big role in the Bible. At times, even keeping the man of God straight. I can give examples but let me skip them to get to my point.
Women aren't meant to be preachers. That's the bottom line. They can't be Apostles.... Those sent to lead a Church. God said it, not me. And Apostle is one sent by God, and he ain't ever sent a woman to be an Apostle. He never sent one to preach either.
He sent plenty of women to read letters to Churches from Apostles and preachers. He even had some be judges, teachers and helps. But they aren't to be in leadership.
All of what Paul talked about when he discussed the roll of a husband and wife was about the Church. Jesus is the Husband, and we, the Church are the wife. We do what he wants, not the other way around!
I honestly can't say they aren't talented enough. But that is the way it is.
Tina
Member
Off topic !
This thread has nothing to do with women being or not being apostles, preachers, teachers or whatever ....
This is solely about whether women, any women as lay as me, can even utter one word in church assemblies.
totopicOh by the way, you said ... "He sent plenty of women to read letters to Churches from Apostles and preachers."
How do you suppose they did it ? Through email or iphone ?
Off topic !
This thread has nothing to do with women being or not being apostles, preachers, teachers or whatever ....
This is solely about whether women, any women as lay as me, can even utter one word in church assemblies.
Oh by the way, you said ... "He sent plenty of women to read letters to Churches from Apostles and preachers."
How do you suppose they did it ? Through email or iphone ?
Really? That's what this thread is about? Well there was a prayer service is Acts and Rhoda was the only one who responded. Had she not, Peter is pretty much in deep trouble!
Women can't be preachers. But they can pray in Chruch, read letters in Church, and sing and dance in Church.... They just aren't in charge of the service....
Justice
Member
The underline is your own personal interpretation. By giving a different meaning to Paul's questions you have not taken into consideration single women who have NO husbands to ask. The Church of Corinth wrote a letter to Paul which is noted in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul deals with a host of topics some laced with old laws and customs. That's why he writes in 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, WE HAVE NO SUCH CUSTOM, NEITHER THE CHURCHES OF GOD. concerning head covering, hair and so forth.
A lot of the old Jewish laws other than the 613 Mitzvots was/is embeded into the people especially the males. Have you ever heard of the Talmud and the ten curses of Eve?
Source - http://jewishbible.blogspot.com/2005/10/ten-curses-of-eve-unpublishable.html
Ten decrees were passed with regard to Eve.
The first is menstruation, when she is driven from her house and banned from her husband.
The second is that she gives birth after nine months.
The third is that she nurses for two years.
The fourth is that her husband rules over her.
The fifth is that he is jealous of her if she speaks with any other man.
The sixth is that she ages quickly.
The seventh is that she ceases to give birth while men never cease being able to beget children.
The eighth is that she stays in the home and does not show herself in public like a man.
The ninth is that when she goes out into the marketplace her head has to be covered like a mourner. That is why women precede the bier, saying: We have brought death upon all the inhabitants of the world.
The tenth is that if she was upright, her husband buries her. For we find that this was the case with our ancestors: our father Abraham buried Sarah our mother. Isaac buried Rebecca our mother. Jacob buried Rachel and Leah.[5]
Another source - http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/eve-midrash-and-aggadah
The Talmud concerning women being silent ---
“A woman’s voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative.”
“It is a shame for a women to let her voice be heard among men.”
“The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness.”[1]
To which you respond by saying, “What?”
Third, where did these men get off thinking they were more spiritual than women? Asking, “Do you think God only speaks through you?” Paul uses words which direct his statement only to the men.[2] Perhaps one man in particular was stirring up this “subjugation of women” doctrine. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any other apostle ever taught that it was shameful for women to speak in the church.
How does he settle the issue, in I Corinthians 14:37?
Even if the law gave women an inferior role, it is not our role model for Christianity. God is not calling us to follow Moses and Elijah but His only begotten Son, in whom He is pleased to dwell (Matthew 17:2-5). However, even the Old Testament gives a high view of women as proclaimers of God’s victory (Psalm 68:11, 25). Women also were the first to announce the Lord’s resurrection.
What have you learned so far to reshape your understanding of it being a shame for women to speak the in church? (Excerpt)
Source - http://life2o.org/journal/training/the-church-series/daughters-of-god/women-shame-speak-church/
Another source --- http://www.his-kingdom.net/women/new-light-on-1cor14-34-36.html
Acts 18: 24-28
24: And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25: This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26: And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
27: And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
28: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
Imagine that Apollos learning the way of God more perfectly by listening not only to Aquila but also his wife Priscilla.
Even so --- The Headship/authority has to be honored and as Paul writes "Let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Corinthians 14:40).
Last edited by a moderator:
If I may say so Elijah what you do or do not personally have a problem with regarding this issue is completely and 100% irrelevant to correctly understanding what Paul said.
If anything there are clear indications biblically that our own biases do indeed affect our understanding of what is written and that we must open ourselves up to whatever God intends to say through what is written (however much we may not like it) to arrive at the truth.
But to have no problem with what is decidedly a modern day practice does not give us any insight at all into what is written.
Carlos
Hi AirDancer,
If I may say so...no you may not put words in his mouth that he did not in fact say. There is altogether too much of putting words in his mouth going on if you ask me.
We need to stick to what he did in fact say and try and understand what he said as he said it without inserting words in between his or otherwise superimposing an interpretation based on our own assumptions about what he must have meant.
Carlos
If I may say so...no you may not put words in his mouth that he did not in fact say. There is altogether too much of putting words in his mouth going on if you ask me.
We need to stick to what he did in fact say and try and understand what he said as he said it without inserting words in between his or otherwise superimposing an interpretation based on our own assumptions about what he must have meant.
Carlos
A correct interpretation of the Bible is not a matter of what if's or of backtracking from what happened in modern times back to what Paul said and assuming that Paul must not have meant what he said in the plain meaning of the words he used because if it was...then this or that might not have happened or this or that might have been the case or this or that might mean this or that or that over there which thing is unacceptable by our own standard of measure.
A correct interpretation of the Bible is derived by first having a right heart before God where one is willing to obey what is written no matter what the ifs or that's or buts of the instructions given are.
A surrendered heart is absolutely critical.
Followed of course by sticking to the words as written in the plain meaning of those words whatever their implications are or are not.
Are you willing if you are a woman to be completely silent during church assemblies for the rest of your life if that is what the text says to do? As an expression of love for God?
Are you willing?
I do not mean to say that you must agree to what I say the text says or you are not willing only that the willingness to embrace whatever the text does say must be present or we will fight tooth and nail to justify a position that lets us get away with ignoring the text.
I am posing that question to everyone reading this thread and not just to you.
Carlos
Of course he was.
But if I may say so a correct interpretation of the Bible does not involve an either / or acceptance of various verses.
Where we accept some but not others in the plain meaning of what is written.
Paul said what he said in the verses you quote and he said what he said in 1 Cor 14:34 about women being silent in church, about not allowing women to speak in church, about it being a disgrace for women to speak in church and so forth.
We must seek to understand both sets of verses (both the one's you quoted and 1 Cor 14). Both sets of verses are true. Both sets of verses have instructions for us that we are to apply, believe, or gain something from.
Did Paul mean to say by the fact that there is no longer male or female in Christ anymore and that there is no longer any distinction in their role within the church?
If you believe that you are assuming something that is not supported Scripturally at all (though I grant you that such an interpretation is indeed very popular among those who fight tooth and nail against what Paul said about role distinctions in the Church between the sexes).
What he meant to say in the verses you quoted is that in Christ there is no longer any distinction in who is acceptable to God through the cross. Jews are no longer superior to Gentiles (God accepts both through Christ). Males are not superior to women (God accepts both through the Gospel).
All who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ with no distinctions being made as to gender, nationality or anything else.
That has absolutely not the slightest thing to do with the different roles assigned by God to men and women within the Church.
Different roles for the different genders in the Church do not imply differences in the degree to which God accepts one person or another anymore than a difference in roles between a manager and an employee imply that one is superior as a person and in character to the other.
To say it does is a gross misinterpretation of what the Word says.
A lot of women especially, and not a few men even, deny what the Word says about the different roles given to men and women in the church because they assume that having different roles makes one (the men) superior to the other (the women). And so they reject different roles which in their mind are tied to differences in value as persons.
Men reject the clear instructions having to do with their role as men within the church because they do not want to embrace instructions that they wrongly tie to personal worth and make them out to be superior (in their minds).
Women reject the clear instructions having to do with their role as women within the church because they do not want to embrace instructions that they wrongly tie to personal worth and make them out to be inferior (in their minds).
But to do either is to operate in deception where we assume that differences in roles equals differences in personal worth.
The truth biblically is that differences in roles are just that and nothing more. Through Christ we are all as acceptable to God through the cross as any other of us, no matter what our roles within the Church are.
To embrace that is to embrace the different roles as God intended and it frees us to accept what is written as written without trying to make the words say something other than what they so plainly say.
Carlos
handy
Member
Carlos,
A correct interpretation of the Bible always...always...allows Scripture to interpret Scripture first as well and to always...always...keep things within context.
If we don't rigidly apply these to exegetical principles to our study of God's word, we can make God's word say anything at all.
You replied to me earlier once in this thread saying:
The context of what Paul is saying remains the same from Chapter 11 all the way through to the end of 14. And, the context is clearly church order within the assemblies and how all who are gifted are to exercise those gifts within the assemblies. We can tell this is the context by simply reading the chapters through...all the instructions are dealing with how to conduct oneself during the assemblies.
We can see this is the context by looking at verses 17 and 18 of Chapter 11:
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.
By giving what instruction? The instruction that women are to cover their heads while praying or prophesying. The context of the instruction is that Paul is addressing the issues of when the Corinthian church came together as a church. Every other instruction from the first of Chapter 11 (women praying and prophesying) to the end of Chapter 14 has to do with conducting the services decently and in order.
;) Your challenge applies to you as well, friend. If it can be shown that the context of Paul's instructions that women are to keep their heads covered when in prayer or prophesying applies to when they are in assemblies, are you willing then to open up to what your sisters have to share when in church?
There have been several here who have given us the linguistic background of the term Paul used that has been translated as "silent". This background fits in quite well with the context of the words in Chapter 11
What doesn't fit in well, in any of the texts which deal with women and their role in the Body of Christ, is your interpretation that women are to basically go in, sit down and shut up and to keep silent...which will have to include, no singing of hymns, prayers or anything.
Key here is that God clearly gift's women with prophecy. I've addressed this several times, and you haven't responded at all (busy thread, I understand) but I hope you are taking in that, still within the very context we are addressing...How those in the body are to conduct themselves when exercising their spiritual gifts during the assemblies, God gifts women with prophesy and we need look no further than the very Chapter you are quoting, Chapter 14, to see what prophesy is:
One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. vs4
To try to twist this somehow around to say that women can prophesy, just not in church, is to deny the very purpose of the gift.
I hope that you are as open minded and as teachable as you earlier claimed to be. Because brother, you certainly can embrace women as your fellow disciples and listen to what God has given them to share.
Looking back over your earlier posts to me, you were unsure of my stand. I addressed that, but again very busy thread, so I'll state it again... women are to exercise their gifts within the Body and the assemblies, but under the authority of men. In exercising their gifts, women shouldn't be perceived as usurping male authority.
A correct interpretation of the Bible always...always...allows Scripture to interpret Scripture first as well and to always...always...keep things within context.
If we don't rigidly apply these to exegetical principles to our study of God's word, we can make God's word say anything at all.
You replied to me earlier once in this thread saying:
I've already addressed this once, but am going to do so again.
The context of what Paul is saying remains the same from Chapter 11 all the way through to the end of 14. And, the context is clearly church order within the assemblies and how all who are gifted are to exercise those gifts within the assemblies. We can tell this is the context by simply reading the chapters through...all the instructions are dealing with how to conduct oneself during the assemblies.
We can see this is the context by looking at verses 17 and 18 of Chapter 11:
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.
By giving what instruction? The instruction that women are to cover their heads while praying or prophesying. The context of the instruction is that Paul is addressing the issues of when the Corinthian church came together as a church. Every other instruction from the first of Chapter 11 (women praying and prophesying) to the end of Chapter 14 has to do with conducting the services decently and in order.
;) Your challenge applies to you as well, friend. If it can be shown that the context of Paul's instructions that women are to keep their heads covered when in prayer or prophesying applies to when they are in assemblies, are you willing then to open up to what your sisters have to share when in church?
There have been several here who have given us the linguistic background of the term Paul used that has been translated as "silent". This background fits in quite well with the context of the words in Chapter 11
What doesn't fit in well, in any of the texts which deal with women and their role in the Body of Christ, is your interpretation that women are to basically go in, sit down and shut up and to keep silent...which will have to include, no singing of hymns, prayers or anything.
Key here is that God clearly gift's women with prophecy. I've addressed this several times, and you haven't responded at all (busy thread, I understand) but I hope you are taking in that, still within the very context we are addressing...How those in the body are to conduct themselves when exercising their spiritual gifts during the assemblies, God gifts women with prophesy and we need look no further than the very Chapter you are quoting, Chapter 14, to see what prophesy is:
One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. vs4
To try to twist this somehow around to say that women can prophesy, just not in church, is to deny the very purpose of the gift.
I hope that you are as open minded and as teachable as you earlier claimed to be. Because brother, you certainly can embrace women as your fellow disciples and listen to what God has given them to share.
Looking back over your earlier posts to me, you were unsure of my stand. I addressed that, but again very busy thread, so I'll state it again... women are to exercise their gifts within the Body and the assemblies, but under the authority of men. In exercising their gifts, women shouldn't be perceived as usurping male authority.
Not quite.
It's a matter of both men and women in the Church taking seriously the call of God to die to themselves and take up how God wants us to be.
As Christians we are no longer on the throne of our lives and ruled by self (if we are Christians at all...many who profess to be Christian have never surrendered themselves to do His will and do not respect or acknowledge God as God in their lives). We have given up our rebellious ways and attitudes and have chosen to submit ourselves to God as God through the reconciliation made possible through the blood of Jesus.
So getting women to not speak out at an assembly of the church is fundamentally a matter of getting women to yield to God in whatever He might ask them to do through the Word and not a matter at all of forcing them to do anything or cutting off the heads of those who won't comply.
In the end every woman has a choice. Self or God as revealed in the Word.
Carlos
Without question...my answer is an unequivacable YES!
Sorry I have not gotten back to you on some of what you said as much as I would have liked to Dora. I have been really busy with various things and I am still behind in responding to friends and others on various issues.
Bear with me as I try and catch up but I will address some of your points.
Carlos
Okay...I've got another minute and I want to take this minute to better address an objection raised by some in this thread..
The objections goes like this....
The objection may differ just a tad in some particulars but essentially it's that the silence mentioned in 1 Cor 14:34 is of limited duration and not something that needs to last for an entire meeting.
Mind you I am not addressing what that silence pertains to in this post (i.e. whether it applies only to verbal expressions of the spiritual gifts or talking in general) only the belief that it is a limited silence that can be broken if one is not disruptive and speaks in a way that does not violate decency and in order.
1 Cor 13:34 would, in line with this objection, read thus (all quotations are from the NASB unless otherwise noted)...thoughts in brackets are supposedly indicated by nuances in the Greek or by what other verses throughout the New Testament say...again this is if the objection raised is valid....
The first thing I would like to note here is that Paul makes a connection between not speaking and submission on the part of women in an assembly of the church. If they do not speak they subject themselves. Conversely if they speak they are rebellious (I realize it doesn't flat out say this but that IS the opposite of submission...that is to say rebellious and Paul clearly connects not speaking with submission so speaking must conversely go against what Paul said to do and be rightly considered rebellious).
If the silence Paul commands is a limited kind that is only applicable to not causing a disruption such that a woman can speak in turn then it would completely negate any connection between not speaking and submission.
For a woman could then speak out in the church as well as remain silent and be in submission under both.
If we deny any connection between not speaking and submission then why did Paul bring up submission at all? To deny the connection is to leave submission all on it's own and render it all but meaningless in the context of what Paul is saying.
How does a women submit herself if not by not speaking in this context?
If you take away the not speaking as a visible expression of submission then how exactly does she express submission according to Paul's teaching here about how women are to conduct themselves in church meetings?
Apart from not speaking there is no practical expression of submission given and you are left with a command to be in submission that has no practical expression in this context. A command without teeth so to speak.
If the silence commanded is solely for the purpose of not causing a disruption then why does Paul command only the women to be silent? Would not such a silence apply equally well to the men?
Some say that it is because New Testament women in Corinth where more disruptive than the men or some similar thing but any such belief is an assumption since the text says nothing of the sort.
In other words the belief that women and in particular Corinthian women, were more disruptive than the men...is just an assumption. If this is not so which verse in the text as written says anything of the sort? There is no such thing in the text. At all.
It is an assumption without any evidence.
If it is disgraceful to speak in church, only when a woman is interrupting others and causing a disruption, why does Paul instruct the women to ask their husbands at home about anything they might wish to know? Would it not have been possible to ask in such a way as to not cause a disruption in the assembly as well as at home?
Paul makes a clear distinction between asking in the church and asking at home. In the former context it is not okay while in the latter it is.
If the silence is just to avoid disruption then no such distinction between how a woman conducts herself at home and in church is necessary and is contradictory to the whole thrust of the silence to avoid disruption objection since a woman would be as free to ask in the church assembly as at home if her asking was not done in a disruptive manner.
If it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church only when she interrupts someone else and causes a disruption why did Paul instruct women to ask their husbands at home? Would it not be equally as disruptive for the men to be answering women in the church gathering as it would have been for women to be asking their men about things in the gathering?
Yet Paul singles out the women as the intended recipients of his instructions. Why?
In the setting of a church assembly women are not permitted to speak out. No permission is found in the text or even implied to allow a women to speak when it does not disrupt a meeting of the church.
Without even an implied permission to speak all we are left with as that women are not allowed to speak in an assembly of the church.
In the setting of a church assembly it is disgraceful for a women to speak out. Disgraceful is connected with speaking not with disruption. In other words the text does not say "it is disgraceful for a woman to disrupt" but rather "it is disgraceful for a woman to speak". It is not disgraceful for men to speak out in a church assembly. Indeed the whole of chapter 14 encourages the men to speak out to exercise spiritual gifts. The instructions limiting speech are only for the women.
Paul does not single out disruptive women. Rather he addresses his instructions to women in a church setting. To believe that he is referring only to those who cause a disruption is an assumption since nothing in the text warrants such a conclusion.
Another objection that has been raised in this thread is that women can speak (without causing disruption and as the men can) when speaking under the authority of a man (such as a husband or pastor).
But such an objection turns Paul's connection between submission and not speaking upside down.
What Paul's teaching points to as rebellion (i.e. the act of speaking out in a church assembly) becomes submission (when done under authority) and what he teaches as submission (not speaking out) becomes unnecessary. Making Paul's teaching of no practical affect whatsoever.
If the silence Paul commands is of limited duration within a meeting of the church then so too is the lack of permission to speak and the disgracefulness of speaking.
I mean if a woman can speak when not interrupting others than it stands to reason that permission to speak is implied at different points in time during a meeting and that it is not always disgraceful for a woman to speak out in church.
But no Greek nuance or otherwise gives us liberty to believe that all three, the silence, the permission (or lack of it actually), and the disgracefulness are of limited duration and only apply to when a woman is causing a disruption.
To believe that is again assumption. A belief that is unsupported by what Paul says in the plain meaning of the words used or by any stretch of Greek definition of the underlying words used for silence, not allowing, and disgrace.
If one makes a case for one being of limited duration then the case must be likewise made for all three since it is incongruous to say that silence, for example, is limited but that the lack of permission to speak applies to the entire meeting or that it is disgraceful throughout the meeting to speak.
If one says the silence applies throughout but that a woman may speak when she is not disrupting and that it is not always disgraceful to speak throughout a meeting then that is just plain contradictory.
What applies to one of the three must by definition apply to all three.
Temporary silence must go hand in hand with temporary lack of permission to speak and the temporary disgracefulness of speaking.
But again...nothing in the text or underlying Greek that I know of, supports the notion that all three are of temporary duration and only to avoid disruption.
Rather the plain meaning of what Paul says is that women must remain silent, that they do not have permission to speak, and that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in an assembly of the church.
Barring any reason to do otherwise we must take what is said at face value and not draw conclusions based on unsupported assumptions.
Some here seem to make light of negating what Paul said based on this or that assumption but an assumption is an assumption and not a fact. An assumption that is not supported by anything in the text is simply conjecture and should not be taken into account when the aim is to correctly interpret what Paul said.
Incidentally, for those of you that like to pull in other verses, 1 Cor 14 is not the only place in the New Testament where Paul gives women instruction about being silent.
Again Paul connects submissiveness (i.e. the need to be submissive) with being silent (phrased here as "quietly receiving instruction").
Once again Paul does not allow, note the words used...does not allow, a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man but to remain quiet.
What Paul does not allow in 1 Timothy could just as well have been shortened to say "I do not allow a woman to speak".
What he did say in 1 Cor 14 by the way.
I have never said that the not speaking applies to not speaking a single word ever during an assembly of the church.
Paul makes it clear here that the not speaking relates to teaching or exercising authority which fits in with instructions in 1 Cor 14 to prophecy, speak in tongues, interpret, give revelation and otherwise (all of which involve some measure of teaching others or passing along to others in a teaching manner and authoritatively so, what God thinks).
Carlos
The objections goes like this....
The objection may differ just a tad in some particulars but essentially it's that the silence mentioned in 1 Cor 14:34 is of limited duration and not something that needs to last for an entire meeting.
Mind you I am not addressing what that silence pertains to in this post (i.e. whether it applies only to verbal expressions of the spiritual gifts or talking in general) only the belief that it is a limited silence that can be broken if one is not disruptive and speaks in a way that does not violate decency and in order.
1 Cor 13:34 would, in line with this objection, read thus (all quotations are from the NASB unless otherwise noted)...thoughts in brackets are supposedly indicated by nuances in the Greek or by what other verses throughout the New Testament say...again this is if the objection raised is valid....
The first thing I would like to note here is that Paul makes a connection between not speaking and submission on the part of women in an assembly of the church. If they do not speak they subject themselves. Conversely if they speak they are rebellious (I realize it doesn't flat out say this but that IS the opposite of submission...that is to say rebellious and Paul clearly connects not speaking with submission so speaking must conversely go against what Paul said to do and be rightly considered rebellious).
If the silence Paul commands is a limited kind that is only applicable to not causing a disruption such that a woman can speak in turn then it would completely negate any connection between not speaking and submission.
For a woman could then speak out in the church as well as remain silent and be in submission under both.
If we deny any connection between not speaking and submission then why did Paul bring up submission at all? To deny the connection is to leave submission all on it's own and render it all but meaningless in the context of what Paul is saying.
How does a women submit herself if not by not speaking in this context?
If you take away the not speaking as a visible expression of submission then how exactly does she express submission according to Paul's teaching here about how women are to conduct themselves in church meetings?
Apart from not speaking there is no practical expression of submission given and you are left with a command to be in submission that has no practical expression in this context. A command without teeth so to speak.
If the silence commanded is solely for the purpose of not causing a disruption then why does Paul command only the women to be silent? Would not such a silence apply equally well to the men?
Some say that it is because New Testament women in Corinth where more disruptive than the men or some similar thing but any such belief is an assumption since the text says nothing of the sort.
In other words the belief that women and in particular Corinthian women, were more disruptive than the men...is just an assumption. If this is not so which verse in the text as written says anything of the sort? There is no such thing in the text. At all.
It is an assumption without any evidence.
If it is disgraceful to speak in church, only when a woman is interrupting others and causing a disruption, why does Paul instruct the women to ask their husbands at home about anything they might wish to know? Would it not have been possible to ask in such a way as to not cause a disruption in the assembly as well as at home?
Paul makes a clear distinction between asking in the church and asking at home. In the former context it is not okay while in the latter it is.
If the silence is just to avoid disruption then no such distinction between how a woman conducts herself at home and in church is necessary and is contradictory to the whole thrust of the silence to avoid disruption objection since a woman would be as free to ask in the church assembly as at home if her asking was not done in a disruptive manner.
If it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church only when she interrupts someone else and causes a disruption why did Paul instruct women to ask their husbands at home? Would it not be equally as disruptive for the men to be answering women in the church gathering as it would have been for women to be asking their men about things in the gathering?
Yet Paul singles out the women as the intended recipients of his instructions. Why?
In the setting of a church assembly women are not permitted to speak out. No permission is found in the text or even implied to allow a women to speak when it does not disrupt a meeting of the church.
Without even an implied permission to speak all we are left with as that women are not allowed to speak in an assembly of the church.
In the setting of a church assembly it is disgraceful for a women to speak out. Disgraceful is connected with speaking not with disruption. In other words the text does not say "it is disgraceful for a woman to disrupt" but rather "it is disgraceful for a woman to speak". It is not disgraceful for men to speak out in a church assembly. Indeed the whole of chapter 14 encourages the men to speak out to exercise spiritual gifts. The instructions limiting speech are only for the women.
Paul does not single out disruptive women. Rather he addresses his instructions to women in a church setting. To believe that he is referring only to those who cause a disruption is an assumption since nothing in the text warrants such a conclusion.
Another objection that has been raised in this thread is that women can speak (without causing disruption and as the men can) when speaking under the authority of a man (such as a husband or pastor).
But such an objection turns Paul's connection between submission and not speaking upside down.
What Paul's teaching points to as rebellion (i.e. the act of speaking out in a church assembly) becomes submission (when done under authority) and what he teaches as submission (not speaking out) becomes unnecessary. Making Paul's teaching of no practical affect whatsoever.
If the silence Paul commands is of limited duration within a meeting of the church then so too is the lack of permission to speak and the disgracefulness of speaking.
I mean if a woman can speak when not interrupting others than it stands to reason that permission to speak is implied at different points in time during a meeting and that it is not always disgraceful for a woman to speak out in church.
But no Greek nuance or otherwise gives us liberty to believe that all three, the silence, the permission (or lack of it actually), and the disgracefulness are of limited duration and only apply to when a woman is causing a disruption.
To believe that is again assumption. A belief that is unsupported by what Paul says in the plain meaning of the words used or by any stretch of Greek definition of the underlying words used for silence, not allowing, and disgrace.
If one makes a case for one being of limited duration then the case must be likewise made for all three since it is incongruous to say that silence, for example, is limited but that the lack of permission to speak applies to the entire meeting or that it is disgraceful throughout the meeting to speak.
If one says the silence applies throughout but that a woman may speak when she is not disrupting and that it is not always disgraceful to speak throughout a meeting then that is just plain contradictory.
What applies to one of the three must by definition apply to all three.
Temporary silence must go hand in hand with temporary lack of permission to speak and the temporary disgracefulness of speaking.
But again...nothing in the text or underlying Greek that I know of, supports the notion that all three are of temporary duration and only to avoid disruption.
Rather the plain meaning of what Paul says is that women must remain silent, that they do not have permission to speak, and that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in an assembly of the church.
Barring any reason to do otherwise we must take what is said at face value and not draw conclusions based on unsupported assumptions.
Some here seem to make light of negating what Paul said based on this or that assumption but an assumption is an assumption and not a fact. An assumption that is not supported by anything in the text is simply conjecture and should not be taken into account when the aim is to correctly interpret what Paul said.
Incidentally, for those of you that like to pull in other verses, 1 Cor 14 is not the only place in the New Testament where Paul gives women instruction about being silent.
Again Paul connects submissiveness (i.e. the need to be submissive) with being silent (phrased here as "quietly receiving instruction").
Once again Paul does not allow, note the words used...does not allow, a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man but to remain quiet.
What Paul does not allow in 1 Timothy could just as well have been shortened to say "I do not allow a woman to speak".
What he did say in 1 Cor 14 by the way.
I have never said that the not speaking applies to not speaking a single word ever during an assembly of the church.
Paul makes it clear here that the not speaking relates to teaching or exercising authority which fits in with instructions in 1 Cor 14 to prophecy, speak in tongues, interpret, give revelation and otherwise (all of which involve some measure of teaching others or passing along to others in a teaching manner and authoritatively so, what God thinks).
Carlos
Last edited by a moderator:
In this post I would like to address the notion that has been brought out in this thread that a person, like myself, who is not well versed in Greek and it's nuances cannot possibly understand what Paul meant to say in the verses we have been discussing.
First off I would like to say in answer to this notion that the apostles themselves were ordinary "uneducated" men.
Having a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ, having the indwelling Holy Spirit within (who leads us into truth), and having a willing and eager heart to do whatever the Lord wants as a member of His Body goes a very long way to helping us understand what is written.
One does not need to be learned in Greek or biblical studies to understand what God meant to say by what he inspired the writers of the New Testament to say.
Aside from that it is a fact that those who have worked on and edited our English Bibles were on the whole the best Greek scholars that could be had.
Almost certainly better than any of us can lay claim to being.
They chose the English words in our bibles for a reason. Namely that the English words used best served to express in our own language what the Greek words were meant to say.
Admittedly the Greek is a richer and more descriptive language than the English but no one should presume to have a better handle on correctly understanding what the Word says in English just because they understand the Greek.
The English is plenty good enough for most interpretation if the work of the scholars who translated the Greek into English is to be given any weight at all in correctly having translated the Greek into English within the limits of the English language.
God is still God.
Sin is still sin.
Judgement is still judgement.
Women is still women.
Church is still church.
All the underlying Greek words from which these English words come and many more could not have been more accurately translated into English than they were when our English bibles were put together.
Occasionally you might find an exception to that but such are very rare exceptions.
As I said the English is plenty good enough.
If one wants to be even more sure there are plenty of bible study tools available to anyone who cares to use them such as the Amplified Bible, and Greek concordances (which show every place where a Greek word is used).
Most such tools are free and are available online to anyone who cares to use them.
More often than not an appeal to the Greek seems to be used as a way to negate what the plain meaning as found in the English is.
The irony of that is that for every person who objects to the plain meaning as found in the English based on some mysterious Greek nuance one can readily find another Greek "scholar" who will support the plain meaning.
Which brings us right back to the starting point of having to prayerfully look at what the plain meaning of the English words are in context to help us arrive at a clear interpretation.
I am not aware of a single Greek nuance that so completely invalidates the plain meaning of any verse that the verse in English is rendered completely devoid of certain meaning.
Greek nuances usually add to and expand on the plain meaning. They do not usually take away or negate the plain meaning.
Should we take into account the Greek? Certainly. But in the case of the discussion here I have not seen a single solitary piece of evidence by anything that has been shared to suggest that silence does not mean silence.
As to the silence being only a temporary silence the direct text and context of what Paul said in 1 Cor 14 does not support that. Support for that is brought in from other verses where the same Greek word seems to imply a limited silence.
So what is implied in other verses is superimposed on 1 Cor 14 and assumed to be what Paul meant to say.
That's not a Greek thing at all. That's just a choice. To ignore the immediate context and believe that how a word was used in other verses is definitively the way it was used in 1 Cor 14.
One cannot say definitively that the silence mentioned in 1 Cor 14 is of limited scope. I mean definitively where every Greek scholar would likewise say the same thing.
It's a possibility.
But not a certainty.
If the context is against that possibility...if defining a word that way within the context does not make sense or is contradicted by the context then our assumptions about what a word means must give way to how it is used in the context.
Assuming that the essential meaning of the word, in this case "silence", still holds true.
We cannot take a word, add a bunch of Greek nuances, and come out with a meaning for that word out of whack with the context in which it is used.
Carlos
First off I would like to say in answer to this notion that the apostles themselves were ordinary "uneducated" men.
Having a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ, having the indwelling Holy Spirit within (who leads us into truth), and having a willing and eager heart to do whatever the Lord wants as a member of His Body goes a very long way to helping us understand what is written.
One does not need to be learned in Greek or biblical studies to understand what God meant to say by what he inspired the writers of the New Testament to say.
Aside from that it is a fact that those who have worked on and edited our English Bibles were on the whole the best Greek scholars that could be had.
Almost certainly better than any of us can lay claim to being.
They chose the English words in our bibles for a reason. Namely that the English words used best served to express in our own language what the Greek words were meant to say.
Admittedly the Greek is a richer and more descriptive language than the English but no one should presume to have a better handle on correctly understanding what the Word says in English just because they understand the Greek.
The English is plenty good enough for most interpretation if the work of the scholars who translated the Greek into English is to be given any weight at all in correctly having translated the Greek into English within the limits of the English language.
God is still God.
Sin is still sin.
Judgement is still judgement.
Women is still women.
Church is still church.
All the underlying Greek words from which these English words come and many more could not have been more accurately translated into English than they were when our English bibles were put together.
Occasionally you might find an exception to that but such are very rare exceptions.
As I said the English is plenty good enough.
If one wants to be even more sure there are plenty of bible study tools available to anyone who cares to use them such as the Amplified Bible, and Greek concordances (which show every place where a Greek word is used).
Most such tools are free and are available online to anyone who cares to use them.
More often than not an appeal to the Greek seems to be used as a way to negate what the plain meaning as found in the English is.
The irony of that is that for every person who objects to the plain meaning as found in the English based on some mysterious Greek nuance one can readily find another Greek "scholar" who will support the plain meaning.
Which brings us right back to the starting point of having to prayerfully look at what the plain meaning of the English words are in context to help us arrive at a clear interpretation.
I am not aware of a single Greek nuance that so completely invalidates the plain meaning of any verse that the verse in English is rendered completely devoid of certain meaning.
Greek nuances usually add to and expand on the plain meaning. They do not usually take away or negate the plain meaning.
Should we take into account the Greek? Certainly. But in the case of the discussion here I have not seen a single solitary piece of evidence by anything that has been shared to suggest that silence does not mean silence.
As to the silence being only a temporary silence the direct text and context of what Paul said in 1 Cor 14 does not support that. Support for that is brought in from other verses where the same Greek word seems to imply a limited silence.
So what is implied in other verses is superimposed on 1 Cor 14 and assumed to be what Paul meant to say.
That's not a Greek thing at all. That's just a choice. To ignore the immediate context and believe that how a word was used in other verses is definitively the way it was used in 1 Cor 14.
One cannot say definitively that the silence mentioned in 1 Cor 14 is of limited scope. I mean definitively where every Greek scholar would likewise say the same thing.
It's a possibility.
But not a certainty.
If the context is against that possibility...if defining a word that way within the context does not make sense or is contradicted by the context then our assumptions about what a word means must give way to how it is used in the context.
Assuming that the essential meaning of the word, in this case "silence", still holds true.
We cannot take a word, add a bunch of Greek nuances, and come out with a meaning for that word out of whack with the context in which it is used.
Carlos
Sorry if I did not make myself more clear Dora. I wrote those last few sentences in a hurry.
I recognize from your question that there is a gap in my explanation. I wish I had time to fill in that gap tonight but I just don't.
It has to do with how to reconcile 1 Cor 11 with 1 Cor 14. As I prayed about the apparent discrepancy between those two sets of verses and instructions a couple of days ago (in line with what you had previously brought up) the Lord seemed to give me a perfectly plausible explanation as to how to reconcile the two that I will post on tomorrow if I get the chance.
Until then...have a great night!
Carlos
woodlandapple
Member
Carlos
Thankyou for posting that, it is good to see how my posts are being interpreted : )
I agree that Greek shouldn't be bandied around as a magic wand and yet I believe it shouldn't be ignored either.
I spend a lot of time with my Greek definitions on this forum, I don't just make them up. I refer to my text books, my dictionary an also my lecturers before I post them and it frustrates me when people who don't know Greek instantly dismisses it as wrong simply because it doesn't agree with them.
So I probably do go overboard, and I apologies for that.
I agree that often the plain Greek meaning is the best, yet I've shown that the plain greek meaning of the silence verb isn't so plain. There is a reason why this is a controversial subject. And as much as you want it to just mean silence it simply just doesn't.
I also agree that or the most part you don't have to learn Greek to read scripture, and concordiences etc. are amazing tools. But there is a reason by I'm spending a fortune on tuition etc. Just because I read a dictionary on surgery, it doesn't make me a surgeon.
As to the nuances. I think I made a mistake referring to it as nuances, I was trying to explain it without going over anyone's head. The nuance I'm referring to is simply grammar and grammar can change the plain reading of a word, just throw an exclamation mark or a question mark at the end of a sentace to see what I mean. Greek grammar is embedded into the actual words, very different to what it is in English, I can guarantee you that the word you looked up in your lexicon to mean silence isn't actually found in the text, as it is the dictionary form with all the grammar removed and as such the definition in your concordiences will never be the accurate representation of how the word is used in the text for it fails to take into account singularity plural, tenses, moods or voices, number or case etc.
In the partiular case Of how silence is used in this passage there is no plain way to describe it in English as we simply don't have the expressions in English capable of doing that. So regardless of your doctrinal beliefs a plain reading of this text in english is always going to be innacurate.
I apologies if I have in any way gave the impression that you or anyone else could not understand any part of the bible simply because they are not a scholar. If that is the case it is because I have felt that what I have had to say has been instantly dismissed as wrong despite the fact that this the very thing that I do for a living. How would you feel if someone who had read a little bit about what you do for a living comes along and tells you that your work is wrong? (I'm talking Greek, not the bible)
I don't really think that anyone is going to change there opinion on this matter, my goal is to demonstrate the matter is not as simple as it is claimed and that there are very valid reasons to suggest that women do have a voice in church.
Thankyou for posting that, it is good to see how my posts are being interpreted : )
I agree that Greek shouldn't be bandied around as a magic wand and yet I believe it shouldn't be ignored either.
I spend a lot of time with my Greek definitions on this forum, I don't just make them up. I refer to my text books, my dictionary an also my lecturers before I post them and it frustrates me when people who don't know Greek instantly dismisses it as wrong simply because it doesn't agree with them.
So I probably do go overboard, and I apologies for that.
I agree that often the plain Greek meaning is the best, yet I've shown that the plain greek meaning of the silence verb isn't so plain. There is a reason why this is a controversial subject. And as much as you want it to just mean silence it simply just doesn't.
I also agree that or the most part you don't have to learn Greek to read scripture, and concordiences etc. are amazing tools. But there is a reason by I'm spending a fortune on tuition etc. Just because I read a dictionary on surgery, it doesn't make me a surgeon.
As to the nuances. I think I made a mistake referring to it as nuances, I was trying to explain it without going over anyone's head. The nuance I'm referring to is simply grammar and grammar can change the plain reading of a word, just throw an exclamation mark or a question mark at the end of a sentace to see what I mean. Greek grammar is embedded into the actual words, very different to what it is in English, I can guarantee you that the word you looked up in your lexicon to mean silence isn't actually found in the text, as it is the dictionary form with all the grammar removed and as such the definition in your concordiences will never be the accurate representation of how the word is used in the text for it fails to take into account singularity plural, tenses, moods or voices, number or case etc.
In the partiular case Of how silence is used in this passage there is no plain way to describe it in English as we simply don't have the expressions in English capable of doing that. So regardless of your doctrinal beliefs a plain reading of this text in english is always going to be innacurate.
I apologies if I have in any way gave the impression that you or anyone else could not understand any part of the bible simply because they are not a scholar. If that is the case it is because I have felt that what I have had to say has been instantly dismissed as wrong despite the fact that this the very thing that I do for a living. How would you feel if someone who had read a little bit about what you do for a living comes along and tells you that your work is wrong? (I'm talking Greek, not the bible)
I don't really think that anyone is going to change there opinion on this matter, my goal is to demonstrate the matter is not as simple as it is claimed and that there are very valid reasons to suggest that women do have a voice in church.
Last edited by a moderator: