PDA

View Full Version : Women speaking in church 4 -- 1 Corinthians 14



Watchman
Apr 24th 2012, 12:14 AM
This thread is a continuation from the thread, Women speaking in church - 1 Corinthians 11 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/237371-Women-speaking-in-the-church-3-1-Corinthians-11?p=2834101#post2834101).

1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in thechurches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to besubmissive, as the law also says. Andif they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; forit is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originallyfrom you? Or was it you only that it reached?

Scholars disagree about the wording I’ve chosen to start with. The argument centers around whether, as in all the churches, is the end of the preceding sentence, or the beginning of the next thought, as posted above. Since there is no punctuation in Greek manuscripts, I’m sure the disagreement will continue. Chapters11-14 provide the immediate context for this passage:

1 Corinthians 11:2 The head of man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

11:4-6 is the discussion re: prayer, prophecy, and head coverings.

11:17 contains admonition that divisive meetings do more harm than good.

11:20-34 is a discussion of the Lord’s supper.

12:1-31 is instruction about the spiritual gifts, the unity of believers, and the directive to desire the best gifts.

13 is instruction on love.

14:1-25 begins with the directive to follow the way of love and to desire the spiritual gifts, especially prophecy. The gifts are said to be good and are to be used to edify the church.

14:26-40 ties together all of the topics previously mentioned above.

How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one,that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.

To summarize, chapters 11-14 are interrelated teachings that deal with division and problems relative to the Corinthian church’s meetings. Although different problems are addressed, the general theme is this: stop sinning in your meetings, especially stop being divisive. Against this backdrop, then, let’s look at the fragment, women keep silent in the churches.

It is very tempting to say, and has been previously said in this discussion, “It means what it says and it says what it means.” However sensible that sounds at first hearing, it cannot be that simple because we allow women to sing, to sometimes speak in unison with the congregation, to pray, to greet others in what some call, lovefeasts. We allow them to confess Christ when desiring baptism. Consequently, the idea of a strict, literal interpretation here is actually neither. In fact, the text itself raises questions that cannot be avoided before reaching a conclusion in the matter. Chapter 11 discusses women praying and prophesying in the meetings, while chapter 14 says they must be silent. Evidently, we’re going to have to take a look at the cultural / historic context, as well as the meanings of the words, speak and silent. Stay tuned!

blessings,

Watchman :)

Dani H
Apr 24th 2012, 12:33 AM
Cultural context? Say it ain't so!

Staying tuned ...

Watchman
Apr 24th 2012, 01:01 AM
Cultural context? Say it ain't so!

Staying tuned ...
Lol, Dani! I'm writing as fast as I can on the next bit!!

W :)

Watchman
Apr 24th 2012, 01:30 AM
… let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak…

As previously stated, the fragment above gives rise to some questions. What about the exceptions Paul has already stated re: prayer and prophesy? What about singing? Why must a wife ask her husband at home, instead of asking the preacher in the foyer after services? Who does a single women ask?

First century women, both Jewish and Greek, were very uneducated and lead quite sheltered lives. Jews were the core and majority of the early churches. To have an uneducated woman questioning a teacher would have caused a burden on the time of the teacher and the entire congregation, so another way was found to bring wives to better understanding. Few of the women of the day could either read or write, and certainly few would have been up to the task of participating in the Socratic-style teaching that characterized ancient Judea and Greece. In fact, Paul starts with the conditional, ‘if’, not assuming that all wives would want to learn, but encouraging their learning at home anyway. Further, the questioning of a teacher could easily turn confrontational, and this would not set well in a society where submissive women did not provoke such confrontation…especially in front of an audience.

Jewish women were kept intentionally ignorant. William Barclay comments:

“In Jewish law, a woman was not a person; she was a thing. She was entirely at the disposal [of] her father or of her husband. A woman was forbidden to learn the law; to instruct a woman in the law was to cast pearls before swine. Women had no part in the synagogue service; they were shut apart in a section of the synagogue, or in a gallery, where they could not be seen, and were allowed no share in the service. A man came to the synagogue to learn; but, at the most, a woman came to hear. In the synagogue the lesson from scripture was read by members of the congregation; but not by women, for that would have been to lessen ‘the honour of the congregation.’ It was absolutely forbidden for a woman to teach in a school; she might not even teach the youngest children. A woman was exempt from the state demand of the Law. It was not obligatory on her to attend the sacred feasts and festivals. Women, slaves and children were classed together…Rabbi Jose ben Johanan is quoted as saying, ‘…Everyone that talketh much with a woman causes evil to himself, and desists from the works of the Law, and his end is that he inherits Gehena.’"

Likewise Grecian women led very quiet lives. Corinth was smack in the middle of Greece, but was a major port and a Roman colony. It was a cosmopolitan, wealth city with vigorous trade; consequently, it was also an immoral city. Aphrodite was worshiped there, and the 1000 temple prostitutes aided her adherents in their religious sexual ‘duties.’ The Greek historian, Plutarch, stated, ‘Not only the arm, but the voice of a modest woman ought to be kept from the public, and she should feel shame at being heard, as at being stripped. …She should speak either to, or through, her husband.’ Respectable Greek women lived very confined lives. They had their own quarters where no one but their husband came. They didn’t appear at meals. And they never appeared on the street alone. They did not attend public assemblies. Given this sort of cultural backdrop, it is easy to see that if Gentile women had taken an active speaking and teaching role in the church, the inevitable conclusion would have been that the church was the resort of loose, immoral women.

Also of note is Paul’s choice of wording re: a woman should ask her OWN husband at home, thereby preventing a woman from striking up a conversation with another woman’s husband. It was improper, in the culture of those days, for a woman to converse freely with other married men. She would be considered unchaste for such.

With the cultural/historic context in mind, let’s look next at the word, speak. The Greek word is, laleo, which in this case, is a present active infinitive verb…meaning continuous action. The women were not allowed to speak continually, according to the meaning of the verb. Silence translates the Greek word, sigao. It does not mean one cannot utter a word or a sound. It may mean nothing more than to be quiet, or to keep a secret. It is also used in Luke 9:36; 20:26, Acts 12:17; 15:12-13, Romans 16:25, 1 Corinthians 14:28, 30. It is noteworthy that sigao normally refers, in NT writings, to the temporary, courteous silence of not interrupting another. Look at verse 28. Paul didn’t command tongue-speakers to total silence…it was temporary. The prophets, in verse 30, were told to hold their peace (sigao) when another started to speak…a temporary silence. It seems apparent that Paul, when referring to women remaining silent because they must be in submission, was referencing to speech that was not submissive. The Law does not say a woman must remain silent around men, rather, that she should be in submission (as his complement.) It can be reasoned that, in a culture such as ours, wherein a woman may talk to, and in the presence of, men without causing a scandal or being viewed as loose & immoral, the command to silence has no application. This may seem a bit tenuous now, but there’s more to come…as soon as I can find time to continue writing.

blessings,

Watchman :)

the rookie
Apr 24th 2012, 09:02 PM
I love all of this, but it seems to overlook the immediate context related to Paul's 1 Cor. 14:34 - judging prophecy.

In other words, as you've already pointed out, Paul isn't disagreeing with himself (meaning, women can prophesy - or, "exhort, encourage, edify", sing, testify, etc.) He simply hasn't changed subjects as it relates to his primary point: "Let two or three prophets speak, and then let the others judge." Note what he says next: "But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent."

To make 1 Cor. 14:34-35 a universal principle as it relates to women speaking in church is to (1) negate where it has already been shown that they can speak and (2) render v. 36-37 nonsensical and disconnected from Paul's earlier (and subsequent) instruction related to navigating the prophetic utterance in an orderly manner (cf. 1 Cor. 14:40).

To say it again, 1 Cor. 14:26-40 is one unit speaking about one subject: prophetic utterance and how to judge it as a body of believers.

Watchman
Apr 24th 2012, 11:48 PM
I agree. AND, it should be pointed out that 14:26-40 is part of a larger discourse on the spirituals. Notice Paul said, If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. He's talking about both tongues and prophecy because he ended the chapter, or the section, with Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.

blessings,

W :)

JoshuasGal79
Apr 25th 2012, 03:14 AM
Very nice Thank You :) It was a chapter I read and had questions today, because I don't speak in tounges and I am dumbfounded hearing utterances in the pentecostal churches and nobody interprets...where am I being edified? Paul is a great man in writing about order. Thank you for your insights and patience putting this up here, much appreciated!

rwdavis
Apr 25th 2012, 03:38 AM
[QUOTE=the rookie;2837497]....

....

To make 1 Cor. 14:34-35 a universal principle as it relates to women speaking in church is to (1) negate where it has already been shown that they can speak and (2) render v. 36-37 nonsensical and disconnected from Paul's earlier (and subsequent) instruction related to navigating the prophetic utterance in an orderly manner (cf. 1 Cor. 14:40).

[QUOTE]

Paul indeed had spoken to women of the faith to teach other women how a believing woman behaves...

1stTimothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man; but to be in silence."
1stTimothy 2:13 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve."
1stTimothy 2:14 "And Adam was not decieved, but the woman being decieved was in the transgression."

Remembering that 1stCorinthians 11:3 acknwledges the head of every man is Christ, and 1stCorinthians 11:7 carries that on to say, "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head....", and Paul gives the reason, not only in the continuation of that verse, but in many places Paul emphasizes 1stCorinthians 11:3.

Example:
In Hebrews 1:13-14; 2:1-2, Paul tells us that fallen angels (def:mesengers) are not fallen because they might have lost their stedfastness with God, because when we do not heed their testimonies earnestly "..WE SHOULD LET THEM SLIP."

1stCorinthians 11:10 "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

Incidently, the Law of God is for an individual's self regulation, but "..BY THE SAME WORD...(2ndPeter 3:7)" the law spoken by a man for others to obey is always a lie (Numbers 23:19; Romans 3:3-4,4,4,4,4,4,4).

the rookie
Apr 25th 2012, 11:27 AM
Yes, I am very familiar with all of the arguments related to this subject.

Interestingly enough, I rarely see men argue about what "headship" and "authority" means in a New Testament context when presented by a New Testament Apostle. From what I understand from Jesus, unlike the pagans (who use authority as an occasion to "lord over" those they rule), authority in the kingdom of God was about who could go the lowest, serve the most, take the least privilege, using their strength for the highest and best for those who were "under" them. You know, "like Christ loves the church", and all that.

Divine order in marriage seems to be more about who loves first, serves first, gives first, apologizes first, goes lowest, prefers the other always, does the dishes, bears the burden, embraces meekness, sets the culture of the home by being filled with the word and Spirit, has a vibrant prayer life, sets the tone in patience and kindness, empowers his bride to soar in confidence in love, etc. These would all be included in the subject of "like Christ loves the church" and "biblical headship".

Again, interestingly enough, I hardly hear any guys preach these points with the passion they preach "headship" (as they understand it, usually solely related to divine order and who leads the home) and a woman's place in the church.

Watchman
Apr 25th 2012, 11:44 AM
Yes, I am very familiar with all of the arguments related to this subject.

Interestingly enough, I rarely see men argue about what "headship" and "authority" means in a New Testament context when presented by a New Testament Apostle. From what I understand from Jesus, unlike the pagans (who use authority as an occasion to "lord over" those they rule), authority in the kingdom of God was about who could go the lowest, serve the most, take the least privilege, using their strength for the highest and best for those who were "under" them. You know, "like Christ loves the church", and all that.

Divine order in marriage seems to be more about who loves first, serves first, gives first, apologizes first, goes lowest, prefers the other always, does the dishes, bears the burden, embraces meekness, sets the culture of the home by being filled with the word and Spirit, has a vibrant prayer life, sets the tone in patience and kindness, empowers his bride to soar in confidence in love, etc. These would all be included in the subject of "like Christ loves the church" and "biblical headship".

Again, interestingly enough, I hardly hear any guys preach these points with the passion they preach "headship" (as they understand it, usually solely related to divine order and who leads the home) and a woman's place in the church.
Preach it, brother! The authority of servanthood...don't think I've EVER heard a sermon on that!

blessings,

W :)

Watchman
Apr 25th 2012, 11:47 AM
....

....

To make 1 Cor. 14:34-35 a universal principle as it relates to women speaking in church is to (1) negate where it has already been shown that they can speak and (2) render v. 36-37 nonsensical and disconnected from Paul's earlier (and subsequent) instruction related to navigating the prophetic utterance in an orderly manner (cf. 1 Cor. 14:40).

Paul indeed had spoken to women of the faith to teach other women how a believing woman behaves...

1stTimothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man; but to be in silence."
1stTimothy 2:13 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve."
1stTimothy 2:14 "And Adam was not decieved, but the woman being decieved was in the transgression."

Remembering that 1stCorinthians 11:3 acknwledges the head of every man is Christ, and 1stCorinthians 11:7 carries that on to say, "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head....", and Paul gives the reason, not only in the continuation of that verse, but in many places Paul emphasizes 1stCorinthians 11:3.

Example:
In Hebrews 1:13-14; 2:1-2, Paul tells us that fallen angels (def:mesengers) are not fallen because they might have lost their stedfastness with God, because when we do not heed their testimonies earnestly "..WE SHOULD LET THEM SLIP."

1stCorinthians 11:10 "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

Incidently, the Law of God is for an individual's self regulation, but "..BY THE SAME WORD...(2ndPeter 3:7)" the law spoken by a man for others to obey is always a lie (Numbers 23:19; Romans 3:3-4,4,4,4,4,4,4).
Thanks for your comments, RWDavis! Self regulation seems to be a lost concept nowadays. There will be another thread, following this one, that addresses 1 Timothy 2.

blessings,

Watchman :)

rwdavis
Apr 25th 2012, 01:29 PM
Yes, I am very familiar with all of the arguments related to this subject.

Interestingly enough, I rarely see men argue about what "headship" and "authority" means in a New Testament context ....

.....


I do try to eliminate the word argument from my vocabulary because most often it is used to express a conflict of opinions, forgetting that the origin of the word is in reference to supportive evidence without a regard for any evasive opinion.

Interestingly enough, I rarely see men use evidences about what "headship" and "authority" means in a New Testament context. In 1stCorinthians 15:51,55-56 Pauls shows us the mystery of our Lord who takes the lowest positions upon Himself, quoting Hosea 13:14 as the Lord's promise to remain in the low life with Ephraim until He hears Ephraim say, "..What have I to do any more with idols?....(Hosea 14:1,8)"

The simplicity of Christ rests upon a fact that no matter how many people tip-toe to have their praises heard by that which is an abomination in the sight of God (Luke 16:15), our Christ remais in the lowest position among us so that only the least among us can stoop to our knees and serve Him (James 2:5-9).

It is a shame that the men of our churches have becoome devils exalting our bishops into condemnation (1stTimothy 3:1-6), and to serve a worthless altar that leaves our excommunicated Christ to bear the shame alone (Hebrews 13:10,11-13). Evangelism (Matthew 28:18-20), "..BY THE SAME WORD....(2ndPeter 3:7)".

shepherdsword
Apr 25th 2012, 01:41 PM
Preach it, brother! The authority of servanthood...don't think I've EVER heard a sermon on that!

blessings,

W :)

I preach it all the time. The doctrine of the Nicolaitains was nothing but a conquering of the laity by the clergy through improper "lordship" authority.
As for women speaking in the church? If we forbid them are we not disqualifying at least half of the body of Christ from participating? I think the context is clear in regards to that...don't ask silly questions,reserve them for your husband. but if you have something from God's Spirit then by all means...SHARE!

the rookie
Apr 25th 2012, 01:43 PM
Love it :)

Watchman
Apr 25th 2012, 03:25 PM
As for women speaking in the church? If we forbid them are we not disqualifying at least half of the body of Christ from participating? I think the context is clear in regards to that...don't ask silly questions,reserve them for your husband. but if you have something from God's Spirit then by all means...SHARE!

Outstanding paraphrase! Excellent.

W :)

Slug1
Apr 25th 2012, 03:53 PM
As for women speaking in the church? If we forbid them are we not disqualifying at least half of the body of Christ from participating? I think the context is clear in regards to that...don't ask silly questions,reserve them for your husband. but if you have something from God's Spirit then by all means...SHARE!


Love it :)


Outstanding paraphrase! Excellent.

W :)

Let me add a... HOOAH!

John146
Apr 25th 2012, 07:22 PM
Yes, I am very familiar with all of the arguments related to this subject.

Interestingly enough, I rarely see men argue about what "headship" and "authority" means in a New Testament context when presented by a New Testament Apostle. From what I understand from Jesus, unlike the pagans (who use authority as an occasion to "lord over" those they rule), authority in the kingdom of God was about who could go the lowest, serve the most, take the least privilege, using their strength for the highest and best for those who were "under" them. You know, "like Christ loves the church", and all that.

Divine order in marriage seems to be more about who loves first, serves first, gives first, apologizes first, goes lowest, prefers the other always, does the dishes, bears the burden, embraces meekness, sets the culture of the home by being filled with the word and Spirit, has a vibrant prayer life, sets the tone in patience and kindness, empowers his bride to soar in confidence in love, etc. These would all be included in the subject of "like Christ loves the church" and "biblical headship".

Again, interestingly enough, I hardly hear any guys preach these points with the passion they preach "headship" (as they understand it, usually solely related to divine order and who leads the home) and a woman's place in the church.Good post. Except maybe that "does the dishes" part. If you can back that up with scripture then I'll go along with it, otherwise I reserve the right to ignore that part and accept the rest. :D

the rookie
Apr 25th 2012, 07:41 PM
Good post. Except maybe that "does the dishes" part. If you can back that up with scripture then I'll go along with it, otherwise I reserve the right to ignore that part and accept the rest. :D

Ha! :)

Watchman
Apr 25th 2012, 07:41 PM
For I permit no woman to do dishes or to usurp the barbeque grill from their husbands, as in all the backyard churches...

Slug1
Apr 25th 2012, 08:06 PM
For I permit no woman to do dishes or to usurp the barbeque grill from their husbands, as in all the backyard churches...I have 2 grills, 2 smokers and 1 pile of wood... it's very complicated :lol:

Dani H
Apr 25th 2012, 08:23 PM
Good post. Except maybe that "does the dishes" part. If you can back that up with scripture then I'll go along with it, otherwise I reserve the right to ignore that part and accept the rest. :D

Do you expect the Lord to cleanse His vessels without being willing to do the same?

No servant is greater than his master.

There you go. :cool:

John146
Apr 25th 2012, 09:01 PM
Do you expect the Lord to cleanse His vessels without being willing to do the same?

No servant is greater than his master.

There you go. :cool:I can't argue with that. I do the dishes most of the time but my attitude while doing them leaves a bit to be desired sometimes. I need to work on that. She does the cooking (since she loves it and I'm terrible at it), so the least I can do is wash the dishes.

Dani H
Apr 25th 2012, 09:16 PM
I can't argue with that. I do the dishes most of the time but my attitude while doing them leaves a bit to be desired sometimes. I need to work on that. She does the cooking (since she loves it and I'm terrible at it), so the least I can do is wash the dishes.

I was actually only kidding. But hey, if you make your wife happy by helping with the dishes, I'm not going to stand in the way!

We have a similar system and it works for us. Long as husband/wife are on the same page and in agreement, it doesn't really matter so much who does what, IMO.

Watchman
Apr 25th 2012, 09:42 PM
Whoever cooks, at our house, the other does the dishes. Works very well. Looks like I hijacked my own thread!

W :blushsad: .................................................. .................................................. .................. :agree:

rwdavis
Apr 25th 2012, 10:20 PM
I'll be, lol. So the saying "..do the dishes actually means something?' Who could have guessed?

I thought it was a metaphore, like when a wman says she is going to powder her nose but her husband knows she said something else altogether.

How does one "..do the dishes anyway?"

Watchman
Apr 25th 2012, 10:26 PM
It is a deeply held secret that men are not supposed to know...

Watchman
Apr 26th 2012, 01:50 AM
We can continue this part of the topic here, if y'all want to. But several are chompin' at the bit to get to 1 Timothy, so that thread has been started. The link is 1Timothy 2 Women speaking in church (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/237708-Women-speaking-in-church-5-1-Timothy-2?p=2838044#post2838044)-5
And now, back to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress.

W :D