ARE WOMEN ALLOWED TO SPEAK IN CHURCH?

[Bawilli]

  1 CORINTHIANS 14:34 SAYS THAT WOMEN ARE TO KEEP SILENCE IN CHURCH AND THAT WE ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK.
  THIS CHAPTER IS MOSTLY ABOUT SPEAKING IN TONGUES AND WAS WONDERING IF IT MEANT THAT WOMEN WER5E NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK IN TONGUES OR JUST NOT TO SPEAK AT ALL?
  ALSO SEARCHING THE BIBLE TO FIND WERE A WOMEN'S PLACE IS IN THE CHURCH.  I THOUGHT I READ SOME WHERE THAT WOMEN ARE ALSO TO PRAY IN SILENCE BUT CAN'T SEEM TO FIND IT OFF HAND.

  ANY HELP WOULD BE GREATFULL
  THANK YOU

[peh]

Hi Bawilli,

About your question, let me say that what I will say is going to be disagreed with by many and has been already on other threads and forums.   But, and let me tell you up front, this is not a simple answer.  I don't think there is one.  Your question is more difficult than you may know.   There are whole schools of thought and whole denominations that adhere to them that say Paul meant exactly what he said, for all women, in all churches.   There are others that say what he said was cultural and concerned a particular matter at the particular time he wrote it.

Here is what I posted on another forum.   Hope it helps somewhat to answer your very good question:

Take 1 cor 14:34 for example:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

For those who think this applies across the gender, the logic goes "Ok, if you can't talk, you sure can't for instance, prophesy, or preach, or teach.  Then, in many minds is added, "in fact, you are "commanded" to be under  the man; why, even the law says so."  A corrective word here seems needful:  "commanded" is not even in the manuscripts, surprise, surprise.  

As for the law saying so, I sought diligently and found not one of the 10 commandments that have mention of women speaking or not speaking in the churches.   Also found none in the books of law of the Bible.    

So you gotta ask yourself, what law is Paul speaking about?  Jewish doctine, perhaps, but surely man-made, and not God ordained.  When combined with the non-existent "commanded" however, this "commandment" has the appearance of spiritual authority, but lacks the reality of it.  

Now, let's take a better look at this verse AND its context:   Let your women keep silence in the churches for it is not "permitted" (KJV Greek Lexicon defines (first definition) this as "to turn to, transfer, commit, instruct" and only the 2nd definition is "to permit, allow, give leave "."   Why was the 2nd definition used?  

Is it possible that it was because the transcribers over the years were male and that is the way that seemed appropriate to them, considering their cultural context?  If anyone can honestly say "no" to that I'm not going to argue, but you are wrong.  

If you put the first words from the first definition into the statement you can come up with things like...."for they are not turned to to speak", an absolute statement of fact FOR THE CULTURAL CONTEXT:  Neither the "heathen" Greeks nor the Jews allowed women to speak in public.  Greek women are documented as being kept incommunicado by the males who "ruled" them, by many historical archives.  Jews prayed every morning, "Thank you, God, for not making me a woman".  For all I know, the observant ones still do.   I DOUBT that means they hold (held) women in high esteem.

As for the women not speaking in church, Paul himself says in verse 23 of this passage, "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?"

Notice he says "whole" church, and if "all" speak in tongues...

and in verse 24 "But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:"

notice it is "all" who prophesy (not "you men") and ALL who convince the unbelieving and ALL who are said to have "judged" the unbeliever.

Verse 25 says:  And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

By the prophesying of ALL, the speaking of ALL, whether in tongues or prophesy, the unbelieving is now convinced that God is among them.  

How then is Paul supposed to be saying, "oh yeah, you women, you keep silent".   The cultural context seems to be the only explanation!   A paraphrase might be something like:  

"You are not "turned to" or "expected" (in today's words) to speak in public, by the unbelieving, so be under "obedience".  (If you see an unbeliever in the midst of the church), remember it is not to you they will turn to to hear teaching or behaving with authority...walk with circumspection in your prophesying or speaking in tongues.  

As for being under "obedience", that word is defined as (ibid):

1.  to arrange under, to subordinate
2.  to subject, put in subjection
3,  to subject one's self, obey
4.  to submit to one's control
5.  to yield to one's admonition or advice
6.  to obey, be subject

These definitions definitively indicate a VOLUNTARY submission and not a "command performance" of silence.
 
How male Christians can possibly interpret this passage to mean "we rule, we alone can lead, and if we don't there will be chaos", is highly illogical.  

Paul certainly didn't say that here, and he didn't only speak to women in this passage which he wrapped up by saying in verse 40 "Let all things be done decently and in order".  This is the same message he pointed out in verse after verse:

(28-33, for instance):  28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
   
As for women's place in the church, I'm convinced that it is wherever the calling of God places them.   Some are gifted teachers, others are gifted at being "mothers in Israel" to the congregation they meet with, some are evangelists, others might be called to go to the mission field.   If the church were not currently so much an audience, speaker type of situation, if all did as Paul spoke of, having a psalm, hymn, prophecy, etc when gathered together, we'd soon know what our calling is, I think.  

As it is, we have to depend on an interior knowing and that in spite of well-meaning negative input if you do happen to share your "vision".     God is able, thankfully, to overcome all obstacles to let us know what He has called us to do in this life.   Put yourself in His hands and ask Him to show you the way He has chosen for you.  It might happen instantly that He will tell you, but more likely there will be, over time, a certain "knowing" in your inner man that "this" is what I'm all about.

[Bronzesnake]

 I agree with you peh. I don't fully understand the context from which 1 cor 14:34 was given. I have not studied it.

But I do know that God has used women in powerful ways in the Old and New Testament.

Here's five I can think of from the Old Testament.

 Rahab, Deborah, Jael, Bathsheba, and Esther.

[Evangelist]

In re your question..........


Have you ever tried to keep one silent?  


 


Now, without the tongue in cheek......

Paul was specifically addressing an specific problem, in a specific church, at a specific time, and it primarily related to unrestrained behavior during the church meetings.  Because of the context, and to whom the specific admonition is directed, it would be reasonable to assume that:
1. It was mostly women who were doing the talking, and
2. The men were not taking any position of leadership or restraint in the matter, resulting in:
3. A lack of edification and exhortation in accordance with what God wanted.

There are as many "opinions" on this subject as there are Christians...and each and every one of them can dig up "proof" texts to support their position.

I think we would all do well to examine the entirety of the NT, and especially Paul's writings, to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to the role of women in ministry...both within and without the church meeting.

Here is a link to a study (about 5 pages) on women in ministry. It's a PDF, so it should download automatically. Read it at your leisure.

[Tibby]

If it was up to me, they wouldn't speak anywhere Not Like they ever have anything worth hearing, right?

[Evangelist]

If it was up to me, they wouldn't speak anywhere

Wouldn't that be heavenly!!!

Not Like they ever have anything worth hearing, right?

Uh...yeah.....sure......um hmmmmmm!

[seekeraftertruth]

Don't know if this will help or not......
http://www.ntrf.org/silent2.html

[Tibby]

Don't know if this will help or not......
http://www.ntrf.org/silent2.html

Interesting site. The appear to be a little confused, though, they are convergance who think they are Evangelical.

[Codger]

Dear Bawilli,
Unfortunately, the attitude of much of the Church today toward women revolves around two difficult to interpret passages written by St. Paul. I am addressing the one mentioned in your post.

St. Paul was a very sarcastic person and it shows up in his writings. The best interpretation that I have found revolves around this sarcasm - allow me to explain.

1 Cor. 14:34-37 (KJV)  (Quotation)
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

The passage then continues…

[36] What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? [37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Note that I have added quotation marks around the sarcastic verses to indicate that St. Paul is quoting the words of someone in the Church probably a "Judiazer", someone - who in judging from the text - considered himself a prophet in that local body.  Obviously, all St. Paul wanted to do was correct this individual - not dwell on it to a point of driving him (them) out of the Church.

The following is a quote from Dr. John Gustavson.
Quote:
Professor Sir William Ramsey, the most widely accepted authority on St. Paul in the early 1900's says "we should be ready to suspect Paul is making a quotation from the letter addressed to him by the Corinthians whenever he alludes to their knowledge, or when any statement stands in marked contrast either with the immediate context or with Paul's known views." Considering Paul's views on the ministries of Priscilla, Phoebe and others referred to earlier, it is clear that Paul believed in equality of women in ministry. Moreover, ICor 14:34,35, if taken totally literally, cannot refer to the Old Testament Scriptures when speaking of the Law for there is not one trace from Genesis to Malachi of any such prohibition of women to literally keep silent in the church nor is there a single word in the whole "law of Moses" dealing with the subject. Therefore the words, "it is not permitted" and "as also saith the Law" must refer to some rule outside of Scripture. There was no other, but the Oral Law of the Jews appealed to by the Judaizers in the church in their efforts at that time to bring Christianity back within the confines of Judaism.

The Jewish Oral Law did teach the silencing of women. The Talmud also taught that it was "a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men". However, the Oral Law of the Jews is not Scripture. Again, the reference to the "law" is, of itself, sufficient to show that the Apostle who labored so earnestly to free the Christian Church from the very shadow of Judaism was not expressing his own conviction in the language attributed to him.  Paul never appealed to the "law" for the guidance of the Church of Christ, but, on the contrary, declared that believers were dead to the law by the body of Christ" (Ro 7:4) that they might serve in newness of spirit and not the oldness of the letter (v.6).)"
Close quote:

Because the quote was given in a Sarcastic tone, it simply means that the exact opposite was true because he was mimicking or mocking a Judiaser and not making a statement.

Some translations like the KJV and the Amplified Bible insert the word "What!" at the beginning of vs. 36. What is the "What!" there for? This is an expression of outrage at the previous verses or quotations (33-35). Verses 36 - 38 should be read with an element of anger. Verse 37 continues where he is upbrading someone who thought themselves to be a Prophet in the Church. Obviously the person he quoted in vs. 33-35. As Ramsey suggests, 1CO was probably written in response to a letter sent to him by the Corinthians.

You may want to read one of my sources on this - Dr. John Gustavson's papers - part one and two on Women in the Church. The address is as follows...
 
               www.ncinter.net/~ejt/women1.htm

               www.ncinter.net/~ejt/women2.htm    

Codger

[Bronzesnake]

 I don't think sarcasm is part of the Holy Bible my friend.
The verse is most likely written to address a specific situation where some women in a specific congragation were disrespecting the Church by socializing at the service.

[Codger]

Dear BS,
I appreciate your insight and perceptive comments. It makes the hour and a half that I spent writing my first post on this site really seem worthwhile. I really feel welcome here.

With all of the insight given you by the holy spirit and the kindness and maturity expressed on this site I am sure your board will be a complete success. I know your kind attitude and considerate welcome makes me want to be a regular here on CU. Keep up the good fight for the truth of literalism - it's the only way.

Larry

[nChrist]

Dear BS,
I appreciate your insight and perceptive comments. It makes the hour and a half that I spent writing my first post on this site really seem worthwhile. I really feel welcome here.

With all of the insight given you by the holy spirit and the kindness and maturity expressed on this site I am sure your board will be a complete success. I know your kind attitude and considerate welcome makes me want to be a regular here on CU. Keep up the good fight for the truth of literalism - it's the only way.

Larry

Brother Larry,

The comment given appears to be fairly simple and considerate. Sarcasm is not a part of the Holy Bible, and that's all that was said. The portion of Scripture you quoted involves Paul admonishing the Corinthians and telling them how to restore peace and order in their services. Paul addressed numerous issues. I do hope that you enjoy Christians Unite. We do have a large number of sweet Christians here.

Love In Christ,
Tom

John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

[Bronzesnake]

Dear BS,
I appreciate your insight and perceptive comments. It makes the hour and a half that I spent writing my first post on this site really seem worthwhile. I really feel welcome here.

With all of the insight given you by the holy spirit and the kindness and maturity expressed on this site I am sure your board will be a complete success. I know your kind attitude and considerate welcome makes me want to be a regular here on CU. Keep up the good fight for the truth of literalism - it's the only way.

Larry

 Very ironic post.

[Codger]

Tom Wrote:
 Brother Larry,
"The comment given appears to be fairly simple and considerate. Sarcasm is not a part of the Holy Bible, and that's all that was said. The portion of Scripture you quoted involves Paul admonishing the Corinthians and telling them how to restore peace and order in their services. Paul addressed numerous issues. I do hope that you enjoy Christians Unite. We do have a large number of sweet Christians here."

Dear Tom,
I am wondering what version of the Bible you are reading? Mine is full of people with charater deficiencies all the way through from one cover to the other. That is what makes it so believable - it doesen't reek of embellishment. St. Paul was a sarcastc hothead, who was often at odds with his fellow disciples.

Is murder a part of the Holy Bible? How about Adultry? Have you heard of a Bible character named David? Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all on this.

One of the major problems with people reading the Bible is they try to understand these ancient documents with a 21st century western mind - It doesent work in a lot of cases. Often these opinions are no where near reality in the face of the historical facts. There is no greater example of this than the modern dispensational view of eschatology - it is absurd the unrestrained freedom and liberties that people take with the book of Revelation.

Larry

[Bronzesnake]

Tom Wrote:
 Brother Larry,
"The comment given appears to be fairly simple and considerate. Sarcasm is not a part of the Holy Bible, and that's all that was said. The portion of Scripture you quoted involves Paul admonishing the Corinthians and telling them how to restore peace and order in their services. Paul addressed numerous issues. I do hope that you enjoy Christians Unite. We do have a large number of sweet Christians here."

Dear Tom,
I am wondering what version of the Bible you are reading? Mine is full of people with charater deficiencies all the way through from one cover to the other. That is what makes it so believable - it doesen't reek of embellishment. St. Paul was a sarcastc hothead, who was often at odds with his fellow disciples.

Is murder a part of the Holy Bible? How about Adultry? Have you heard of a Bible character named David? Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all on this.

One of the major problems with people reading the Bible is they try to understand these ancient documents with a 21st century western mind - It doesent work in a lot of cases. Often these opinions are no where near reality in the face of the historical facts. There is no greater example of this than the modern dispensational view of eschatology - it is absurd the unrestrained freedom and liberties that people take with the book of Revelation.

Larry

 Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit my friend. He was a murderer at one time, but then he ran into a person you might have read about, His name is Jesus. Jesus changed a murderer into a minister - a Christian hater into a Christian lover, and a soul winner. Paul was not sarcastic.

 How many members do you think a sarcastic pastor would have? Most people I know don't respond too well to sarcasm. People tend to get their backs up against the wall when confronted by sarcasm.

 Yes, murder and adultery are part of the Holy Bible. So, in your mind this leads you to conclude that Paul was sarcastic?

 Was Jesus sarcastic also? What about murder? that's part of the Holy Bible, so was Jesus a murderer and an adulterer as well? That's severely flawed logic my friend.

 I think what's really going on, is that you have supplanted your own tendency toward sarcasm into the scriptures.

 By the way - nice way to begin your fellowship here at C.U.
I'm sure your sarcastic brand of Christianity will gain you many friends.

How’s that for sarcasm!