Carlos I want you to hypothesis for a second that Paul actually wrote for Women to not be disruptive. with that frame I am going to address your concerns, not as an attack, but to let you know where the other sides thinking comes from
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.
I would argue that when Paul mentions submission it is as adherence to the law in regards to the specific gender roles. That is of the headship of the church, and the role of a wife in a family. Biblical submission is a factor in this but is not the whole story. I hope you would agree that there is far more to a woman's role than just submission.
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?
I would say by respecting Gender roles, as the law states. By respecting the head of the church and their authority, by respecting her husband and his headship of the family. by being submissive to the directions of God.
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?
I think Paul is not addressing the issue of womens role in the church, but he is rather addressing a problem in the church. The Men where not held accountable to this issue in particular because they where not the cause of this problem.
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.
It is an assumption, your right. We are not told how disruptive the men are, I would imagine quite disruptive when we look at all the problems they are causing later in the Book!
However, if we acknowledge that Paul is writing a letter via the genre of Occasional Letter to address a specific problem (which is not an assumption but is based on the finding of the exegesis techniques of Form critique, Redaction critique and canonical critique, and is the opinion of every theologian I have spoken to, and read from who are experts in this area. And while you have every right to disagree, it is not a mere assumption.) then we can deduce that the level of disruption, or how it compares to other disruptions are irrelevant, as Paul is simply addressing the issue of how the Women in this church are disruptive.
The evidence for this can be generalised as the structure of the letter, Pauls intended audience and the object of the sentences - which in the relevant passage is clearly the women in the churches of Corinth.
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.
I think someone else raised the point earlier in this thread, what about the women who arnt married? are they therefore not allowed any understanding? maybe a little irrelevant but an interesting question.
Again, lets assume that Paul is talking about order in the church. If the women where in the habit of abusing the gender roles, and therefore the law, and if they where being disruptive and argumentative then it is a logical deduction that they where being argumentative of their husbands, who where also probably the leaders of the church. Therefore it can be seen that Paul is simply saying(in my words) that instead of bickering and arguing in church about matters you don't understand with your husband, do this at home.
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.
I was going to add some quotes here, and all of them you can look back in this thread to find, but rather I want to address something I just noticed in the NASB, which I think is the version you use?
When 1corinthians 14 says 'men' or 'brethren' I want everyone to realise that this is supposed to be NON GENDER SPECIFIC.
Greek designates its nouns into gender groups much like French does. These gender groups have no actual reference to the sexual gender, but rather a category of Nouns.
the Greek word for brethren is simply the plural of brother (brothers) BUT it doesnt mean that all the brothers are male. you could have 1000 women in a room, with one token male and the greek will still refer to them all as brothers.
it is the same for the plural of man, which includes women.
With this in mind it might be useful to have in the back of your head the word 'people, or nation' where you see men, and 'brothers and sisters' where you see brethren. Although the best translation is still men and brothers.
those of you who know french will be like, oh I get it, those of us who only speak English will think its a dirty trick : P
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.
without getting into the structure of grammar again, the subject and objects of vrs 34 and 35 are linked, basically saying you need to address the verb 'speak' (which is not the main verb) in reference to how you translate silence, which brings us back to square one.
please read my discourse on gender words above, it indicates that who Paul encourages to speak are none gender specific.
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.
it is a natural assumption based on the logic that this is an occasional letter which the text can warrant. I dunno, I think there needs to be the distinction made that while it is apparent that Paul is addressing a common law to a common religion (Christianity) and would no doubt express the same ideas to other churches, it is still in relation to a specific church at a specific time with a specific problem. Again, Paul is clearly addressing a problem, not women.
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.
well, actually the Greek does, and is indicated by the tense of the word, which gives further credence to the idea that it is a specific problem, the tense indicates that there is no continuing process, ie there is no command that "women must
keep being silent" which the Greek would have clearly indicated if it had of been so.
But for more relevance, there is no implication form a disruptive sense that the other two are limited as they are in relation to the 'silence' so in other words, women never have permission to be argumentative and disruptive and to do so will always dishonour them and cause disgrace.
The not permission for the women to speak, is linked grammatically to the main verb (compliments it) if we hold the meaning to mean "keep the peace" type of silence then the verb to not speak must compliment that sentiment.
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.
I hope Ive already addressed the issue with plain meaning.
allow me to also bandy the assumption word here, you are making assumptions on what Greek does and doesn't do, it would be best if you leave Greek to those who understand it, it doesn't behave the way you think it does, they all (those three words) actually imply a limited duration in Greek.
What applies to one of the three must by definition apply to all three.
and as all three are based on the main verb, they must all compliment the interpretation of that verb as they are not separate but add information to it.
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.
only if you interpret the verb to mean absolute silence, and if you ignore the genre of the letter.
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.
your assuming that the face value english is the same as the face value greek, and assuming that face value has no reference to context. and I think that if we simply take anything at face value we are blinded to any depth, you loose sight of a lot of what the bible has to offer. For example I am part of Gods flock, but Im not really a sheep, nor is Jesus a literal Sheppard, or infact a door nor is He actually a grapevine. But the plain reading of text would suggest he is, and you would loose sight of what is actual being said.
