Women should be silent in church?

[Villager]

See, here you again take one line and reply with something not related. You haven't answered my questions. But I'll play along.

Which law?

The one Paul referred to. It's in the texts that relate to this issue, and it's been quoted in this thread.

Required by whom

God. According to the Bible, obviously.

and who is required to adhere to it?

God commands everyone, everywhere to repent. According to the Bible.

What happens when the law is broken?

If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

According to 1 Co 14:37-38 NIV.

 

[Songbird]

The one Paul referred to. It's in the texts that relate to this issue, and it's been quoted in this thread.

So which law is Paul quoting? Do you know what he's referring to?

God. According to the Bible, obviously.

God commands everyone, everywhere to repent. According to the Bible.

If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

According to 1 Co 14:37-38 NIV.

Alrighty.

 

[work in progress]

Guesswork, yes. The biblical 'point' is 'Husbands, ... be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner' 1 Pe 3:7 NIV. And of course all knowledgeable Christians are familiar with Proverbs chapter 31.

That may come off as condescending rhetoric, but it appears you've already heard about it from others here!

It might. Otoh, women might realise that modern culture is flattering them in order to deceive. It may occur to them that those who oppose the church wish to encourage Christians to appoint the weaker sex to direct the stronger, and thereby to overcome the church; and women might realise the ploy of Satan and resist him.

Thanks for reminding me! The excuse in 1Timothy 2:11 for excluding women from leadership and speaking to the congregation is that Eve was deceived (nevermind that Adam didn't appear to be rational enough to follow the previous order from Yahweh) and Eve's descendents are likewise too feebleminded to resist temptation from the devil. The good news is that she can be saved through childbearing....is that good news?

Ah yes, rules. 'Do not murder', 'Do not steal', 'Do not commit adultery', and other Biblical rules have been found downright irksome strictures by many who have called themselves Christians. So, when a 'bishop' merely pinches a young lady''s bottom, why bother about it? When a vicar tells blue jokes at dinners, where is the point of making a fuss? When clerics die of AIDS because they think that seminaries are for close physical encounters, why, that's not as bad as burning 'fundamentalists' at the stake.

According to authoritiarians, without clearly defined rules and harsh punishments for violating those rules, everyone will run around killing, stealing and screwing around. And authoritarians, who tend to be conservative and hate change of all sorts, are comfortable with living under these conditions. But, if you read your Gospels, the point behind most of Jesus's condemnations of the Pharisees is that being able to follow a rigid code of laws is not evidence of real virtue. And he was trying to move his followers towards a new standard - Virtue Ethics, where Christians would have "the Law written in their hearts."

Of course, many men in apostate congregations deliberately make themselves look inadequate so that women will appear to shine, as they do in the rest of the worldly world. The curious thing is that their congregations often do not like women in charge, and prefer men to order their estate.

I guess we can at least give you credit for being unapologetic about patriarchy. Most conservatives who follow this line try to dodge and shift around with counter-claims or attempts to divert attention.

But not on biblical accuracy. Like modern 'scholars'.

If they have, why don't you reproduce their wisdom here? We haven't seen it yet, anyway.

While I have the time, I'll point to the key reason why Biblical scholars started scrutinizing many of these misogynistic messages in the Bible in the first place: they are usually off topic in the chapters where they appear -- giving the appearance that they were additions by later scribes...remember there were no printing presses back when these books were written. They were all copied by hand, and there are no original Bible manuscripts in existence today. The earliest fragments are of 2nd century scrolls, complete manuscripts only go back to much later dates.

Anyway, let's look at 1 Corinthians 14, where most of the narrative is about praying, speaking in tongues, interpreting revelations, until there are two verses telling women to stay silent, and then it's back to the original topic in the final two verses:

I Corinthians 14 v.26-40

How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
​

34 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. 35And 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. 36What? 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. 38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40Let all things be done decently and in order.
​

 

[Villager]

That may come off as condescending rhetoric, but it appears you've already heard about it from others here!

That's really quite amusing.

The good news is that she can be saved through childbearing....is that good news?

The news is that women, who in those days prayed to gods to survive childbirth, can survive it, if they remain faithful to Jesus, with love, holiness and modesty. They are saved from eternal death by faith in Jesus, just like... men. Is that good news?

and then it's back to the original topic

It's all part of the same topic of how meetings are properly held, as I'm sure can see, if you'll remove your paragraphing, and if you'll realise that the context was that some were underestimating glossolalia and particularly prophecy in meetings, as can be ascertained from v.1:

'Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.' 1 Co 14:1-2 NIV

There is no return to the topic, it's simply Paul covering all the possible problems, eager as he was to do so in his personal absence . I'll let you off, seeing as you have only a KJV to help you. But not people who parade themselves as scholars. You see, modern scholars don't even have the brains they were born with. Truly. Jesus does that to people.

Unless they are lying, to fool the soft-headed- but that's unthinkable.

 

[work in progress]

That's really quite amusing.

I'm sure it is!

The news is that women, who in those days prayed to gods to survive childbirth, can survive it, if they remain faithful to Jesus, with love, holiness and modesty.

Are you claiming that pregnant women who prayed to Jesus did not die in childbirth like the women who prayed to the wrong gods? I'd like to see that backed up with some historical evidence!

Regardless, the theme of the passage in modern English to women in the congregations was "shut up and go home and make babies....that's all you need to know! Anything further, ask your husband."

They are saved from eternal death by faith in Jesus, just like... men. Is that good news?

And this is why men have been creating religions since time immemorial -- to find a way to cheat death and attain immortality. Sacrifices are made (money, animals), wars are fought, and followers of different gods go through taxing burdens of ritual purity, dietary restrictions, including fasting....all in the hope of appeasing someone or some force that can bring us back to life or preserve some essence of our existence after we die. From my perspective, it's better to come to terms with the facts of our existence, instead of concocting illusions to avoid reality.

It's all part of the same topic of how meetings are properly held, as I'm sure can see, if you'll remove your paragraphing, and if you'll realise that the context was that some were underestimating glossolalia and particularly prophecy in meetings, as can be ascertained from v.1:

'Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.' 1 Co 14:1-2 NIV

There is no return to the topic, it's simply Paul covering all the possible problems, eager as he was to do so in his personal absence . I'll let you off, seeing as you have only a KJV to help you. But not people who parade themselves as scholars. You see, modern scholars don't even have the brains they were born with. Truly. Jesus does that to people.

Unless they are lying, to fool the soft-headed- but that's unthinkable.

No, it's an insertion of something off-topic, as the narrative flows better if you remove verses 34 and 35 (I included 36 by mistake). The textual case against those oppressive verses is that in three Greek manuscripts and two Latin manuscripts, verses 34 and 35 appear after verse 40, at the end of chapter 14. Even some conservative Bible sites acknowledge this problem:

Why, then, would some scholars wish to excise the verses? Because they believe that this best explains how they could end up in two different locations, that is to say, that the verses got into the text by way of a very early gloss added in the margin. Most scribes put the gloss after v. 33; others, not knowing where they should go, put them at the end of the chapter. Fee points out that “Those who wish to maintain the authenticity of these verses must at least offer an adequate answer as to how this arrangement came into existence if Paul wrote them originally as our vv. 34-35” (First Corinthians [NICNT] 700). In a footnote he adds, “The point is that if it were already in the text after v. 33, there is no reason for a copyist to make such a radical transposition.” This is an excellent question, though the flip-side is also one that deserves pondering: an adequate answer needs to be given as to how this reading could show up in all the witnesses if it were not original. The Textual Problem of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
​

That point about the two verses being a possible margin note incorporated into the body of the text of later manuscripts is based on the fact that early manuscripts are loaded with margin notes, that some later copyists were uncertain whether they were part of the text because of difficulty understanding the first scribes writing style.

 

[Villager]

I'm sure it is!

Then you can explain the joke. In your own time.

Are you claiming that pregnant women who prayed to Jesus did not die in childbirth like the women who prayed to the wrong gods?

I'm only saying that your gurus don't have the first clue. But then if you'd rather talk about something else, it's another bit of amusement.

Regardless, the theme of the passage in modern English to women in the congregations was "shut up and go home

As your wise gurus love to say. But then, being illiterate, through no fault of their own, the poor things don't notice that Paul said that everyone is to contribute.

And this is why men have been creating religions since time immemorial

To show that men and women are of equal spiritual value, yes, yes. Well, Christianity does, anyway. That fierce tyrant Paul wrote that 'in Christ, there is neither male nor female'. Though most religions have agreed with Paul that women should not instruct men. It's just Christianity that irritates, for some reason. Can't imagine why that should be.

No, it's an insertion of something off-topic

Don't contradict baldly when you've been given a cogent reason why it isn't an insertion.

those oppressive verses

Nobody's oppressing you. Mind your own business. If women want to sign up to Paul's ideas, and a lot do, that's their business. Or is it your intention to prevent them?

Fee points out

Gordon Fee is out on a limb here.

in three Greek manuscripts and two Latin manuscripts, verses 34 and 35 appear after verse 40

After that nasty Paul has written that those who ignore him will be ignored. Quite obvious why that little 'accident' should occur. Predictable, even.

 

[Jethro]

"As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."

-- 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, NWT


So... why isn't this injunction by Paul followed? As much as I believe in modesty for a woman, and I get enough of that at the Hare Krishna temple and trying to be a good devotee, it's hard for me to swallow this idea that a woman can not preach or be a preacher of some sort.

So why does Paul give this injunction? What could have been the cultural context of the situation, and why is it that women are now ignoring one of such Pauline statements in order to modernise Christian teachings, especially when many claim to believe in the Bible 'alone'?

I have attended many churches and a few Christian meetings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and women are given a chance to give opinion or read passages of Scripture, when this injunction is clearly laid for Christian sisters.

My dear friend, you have asked a very important question, one that I have asked for many years as a Christian i.e. why women are preaching etc in the church when Paul clearly forbade it in Scripture. Firstly, why did Paul gave the injunction or prohibition? He did so because he was fully (2 Tim. 3:16-17) directed by God to do so. This was not because women are less important or intellegent. Rather, because this was God's creative order, man first and then woman. This is why God chose primarily male prophets in the Old Testament (OT) Scriptures. Why God solely chose male priests and kings in the OT. Why God primarily worked with men in the OT. Why Jesus solely chose 12 male apostles. Why the early church solely chose 7 male deacons. And why Paul instructed Timothy and Titus to appoint male elders (bishops/oversears) and deacons. Furthermore, Paul state that it is shameful or disgraceful for women to speak in the church, or to have authority over a man, for it is not their God-given right.

Secondly, why do so many women disobey the words of the apostle Paul? They do so because they are following the ungodly and worldy ways of the feminism, rather than the clear teaching found in Scripture. It is true that some do it out of ignorance. However, many do it feeling that it is their God-given right. However, Peter revealed that many would distort the teachings of Paul in 2 Peter 3:16, which is the case with women preaching, teaching, and speaking in the church when men are present.

 

[gnostic]

My dear friend, you have asked a very important question, one that I have asked for many years as a Christian i.e. why women are preaching etc in the church when Paul clearly forbade it in Scripture. Firstly, why did Paul gave the injunction or prohibition? He did so because he was fully (2 Tim. 3:16-17) directed by God to do so. This was not because women are less important or intellegent. Rather, because this was God's creative order, man first and then woman. This is why God chose primarily male prophets in the Old Testament (OT) Scriptures. Why God solely chose male priests and kings in the OT. Why God primarily worked with men in the OT. Why Jesus solely chose 12 male apostles. Why the early church solely chose 7 male deacons. And why Paul instructed Timothy and Titus to appoint male elders (bishops/oversears) and deacons. Furthermore, Paul state that it is shameful or disgraceful for women to speak in the church, or to have authority over a man, for it is not their God-given right.

It is the reason why I dislike Paul. And it is why I think Paul's prohibition is a load of crap. And it is why Christianity was so f#@% up in the Dark Ages, Middle Ages, right up to 19th century.

Original Sin? Do seriously believe in that self-righteous crap in these days and ages?

I don't remember seeing Jesus making such injunctions against any of the women who follow him. Did Jesus speak of the Original Sin?

 

[work in progress]

It is the reason why I dislike Paul. And it is why I think Paul's prohibition is a load of crap. And it is why Christianity was so f#@% up in the Dark Ages, Middle Ages, right up to 19th century.

Original Sin? Do seriously believe in that self-righteous crap in these days and ages?

I don't remember seeing Jesus making such injunctions against any of the women who follow him. Did Jesus speak of the Original Sin?

Don't blame (Apostle or Saint) Paul for the words that were put in his mouth by later Bible translators. I tried to point this out earlier, but eventually arguing with a doctrinaire fundamentalist is an exercise in futility.

 

[Songbird]

Don't blame (Apostle or Saint) Paul for the words that were put in his mouth by later Bible translators. I tried to point this out earlier, but eventually arguing with a doctrinaire fundamentalist is an exercise in futility.

I'm pretty much ignoring arguments that someone in the Bible supposedly "clearly" said something. If anything were clear there would be little disagreement about it.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm pretty much ignoring arguments that someone in the Bible supposedly "clearly" said something. If anything were clear there would be little disagreement about it.

By "clear" do you mean clear to an informed, rational person? Or clear to everyone?

Just teasing.

 

[Songbird]

By "clear" do you mean clear to an informed, rational person? Or clear to everyone?

Just teasing.

I'm not clear about that.

 

[work in progress]

I'm pretty much ignoring arguments that someone in the Bible supposedly "clearly" said something. If anything were clear there would be little disagreement about it.

Yes, the Bible is the Great Book of Multiple Choice...just about any want, desire or crazy idea can be supported in some degree with a carefully selected Bible quote. Several years back, I discovered a Bible criticism site called the Skeptics Annotated Bible. This page now lists over 1500 obvious and likely contradictions on history and doctrinal issues. Even on core doctrines like how to achieve salvation depend on which book you happen to use: Is Salvation By Faith Alone?

 

[1whirlwind]

Don't blame (Apostle or Saint) Paul for the words that were put in his mouth by later Bible translators. I tried to point this out earlier, but eventually arguing with a doctrinaire fundamentalist is an exercise in futility.

They were Paul's words but should be read with the irony he intended. The following was previously quoted but the meaning wasn't pointed out....


1 Corinthians 14:34-35 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. 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.

Or...this is what the good-ole-boys down at the corner synagogue were saying. Paul then said:
​

14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

WHAT? Are you men crazy...do you think you are God, that the Words are from you or only given to you to understand? Then Paul tells the men that spout such silliness:
​

14:37-38 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. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

To "speak with tongues" is to speak as led by the Holy Spirit...revelations of the written Word....not to bable. Brethren inludes men and women.



.
​

 

[OnPower]

"As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."

-- 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, NWT


So... why isn't this injunction by Paul followed? As much as I believe in modesty for a woman, and I get enough of that at the Hare Krishna temple and trying to be a good devotee, it's hard for me to swallow this idea that a woman can not preach or be a preacher of some sort.

So why does Paul give this injunction? What could have been the cultural context of the situation, and why is it that women are now ignoring one of such Pauline statements in order to modernise Christian teachings, especially when many claim to believe in the Bible 'alone'?

I have attended many churches and a few Christian meetings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and women are given a chance to give opinion or read passages of Scripture, when this injunction is clearly laid for Christian sisters.

do a real study

 

[Desert Snake]

Seems like it would depend on the church.

 

[Huni999]

It is funny that things that people disagree with in the bible, they create a convenient answer to avoid the obvious. This verse is sexiest. The bible was written for men by men. Who decides what verses apply to today and what verses are null and void because they only apply to a particular church during a particular time? The entire epistle was written to a specific church. Why is it in the bible then?

 

[Gaura Priya]

This verse is sexiest.

I didn't know there were sexy verses!

 

[Astounded]

Women are not teachers with authority in the Jewish teaching method...thus they don't teach in a church or a synagogue.

 

[Desert Snake]

Women are not teachers with authority in the Jewish teaching method...thus they don't teach in a church or a synagogue.

Interesting. Good point.