Brother's Only Meetings.

Keven A said:

If you're a brother in the church of Christ, the new testament church and you attend brothers only meetings, please provide the scripture for that, please. I need to see it.

Click to expand...

Jesus met with 12 disciples. They were men. He also befriended women and was teaching Martha and Mary. The military was all male in those days. The Sanhedrin was all male.

Keven A said:

If you're a brother in the church of Christ, the new testament church and you attend brothers only meetings, please provide the scripture for that, please. I need to see it.

Click to expand...

I am assuming you mean when the men assemble to conduct church business separately from the actual fellowship/worship?

The consistent pattern of the Bible is that all members of the local church ought to be present and participants when the work of the church is under consideration. If there are elders in the congregation, they are responsible for the decisions to be made (Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 5:17; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 5:1-2). If the church doesn’t have elders, decision making belongs to all the men of the church (1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:11-12).

So with that in mind, do persons NOT in Christ, get a say in how the local church conducts its business?

Out of curiosity, what would make someone believe it okay?

Food for thought below....

Furthermore, from a secular standpoint, does the sheet Metal workers union allow non members to attend its meetings?

Why would Christ allow such from a non member of His kingdom?

The Church of Christ form of government is an oligarchy, or rule by a few. The few are the elders.

This is the primary source: 1Cor 14:34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

What really happens: The men meet, but the wives of the elders make the decisions.

notreligus said:

This is the primary source: 1Cor 14:34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

Click to expand...

I was just studying this verse last night and realized I was unaware of anywhere in the OT where this "Law" was set down.

Do you have any OT cross references for "as the Law also says"? I was unable to find any.

I've wondered about this as well...

Like other have mentioned, I totally agree that male headship/leadership is clear in scripture. However, does that mean that women should be totally excluded? Where they can't even listen to the discussion? That's what I find potentially problematic.

Let's look at how the dispute on circumcision was solved in Acts 15:
(skimming...)

15 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria ... . 4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ....
11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me.....
19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
...

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they sent this letter by them, ...

________________________

While the men (particularly the elders + apostles) took charge of the situation, it seems that the rest of the assembly (which would have included women) were present during some of the discourse and also were a part in encouraging the messengers.

Just something to think about.

notreligus said:

This is the primary source: 1Cor 14:34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

Click to expand...

Brokenhill said:

I've wondered about this as well...

Click to expand...

So I was studying this some more, and found that the Talmud (the extra-Biblical oral law made up by the Pharisees with many burdens) contains language similar to these verses. It said things like:
--a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff
--a woman is in all things inferior to a man. Let her accordingly be submissive
--a female's voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative
--women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent.
--it is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men.
--the voice of a woman is filthy nakedness
--a woman's speaking is lewd, vile, filthy, decent, foul, dirty and morally degraded

Brokenhill said:

While the men (particularly the elders + apostles) took charge of the situation, it seems that the rest of the assembly (which would have included women) were present during some of the discourse and also were a part in encouraging the messengers.

Just something to think about.

Click to expand...

So... your references and many other indicate Paul did not feel that the voice of a woman was filthy nakedness, lewd, morally degraded, etc. Women were heavy contributors in the early church, were permitted to prophesy and to pray, were involved in teaching doctrine to ministers, etc. Certainly the book of Galatians points out Paul's abhorrence for these extraBiblical laws.

One theory about v 34, 35 that seems plausible to me is that he is quoting the Talmud to then refute it starting in v. 36. He uses this type of structure in other places, so it seems possible.

Famously, for example in Romans 6: Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid.
Also Galatians 3: is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid
etc

At this point, I'm leaning towards 34 & 35 being a quote from the law (Pharisees) that he's disputing starting in v 36. Their verbiage is closely paralleled in the Talmud, and no references to such in "the law" of the OT can be found. It is also contradictory to the functioning of Paul's ministry as it involved the sisters of the church.

So, if all of that is the case, it's very sad that the very burdensome and loathsome Talmud teachings that Paul was disputing was understood to be his truth and used to shame/oppress/abuse women for the last 2,000 years, exactly in opposition to what he was trying to say.

Until someone comes up with a law (other than the extraBiblical Talmud) that says that women speaking is a shame that this could be referring to, my convictions will lean in this direction now. It has been an interesting study!

Endeavourer said:

I was just studying this verse last night and realized I was unaware of anywhere in the OT where this "Law" was set down.

Do you have any OT cross references for "as the Law also says"? I was unable to find any.

Click to expand...

The International Standard Version (ISV) of the Bible reads like this:

1Cor 14:34 the women must keep silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak out, but must place themselves in submission, as the oral law also says.

I'll have to search through the 613 commandments (the Mitzvot) to see if the Mosaic Law - the Law referred to by the Jews as the Law because it is dispersed within the first five books of the Bible - the Pentateuch - to see if there is a command for women to be quiet. As the ISV has this translated the reference to law is oral law. Oral law and rabbinic law are much the same thing. The oral law written down is called the Talmud and there are two main versions of that, although they have been somewhat changed because they have very extreme and hateful comments in them directed toward Jesus and the Gentiles. I have a hard time accepting this ISV rendering because I've always viewed Paul's references to the "law" as references to the Law of Moses. If the ISV has the correct translation then Paul referred to the teachings of rabbis and expected that others would understand. The Church at Corinth included Jews, but was mostly made up of Gentiles. You may know this but rabbinical Judaism was in full force, so to speak, when Jesus came. Synagogues and synagogue worship were fully established. Jesus was not too keen on how the Jews had neglected the Temple and He seemed to feel like they had already turned away Temple worship and the priestly authority and had gone to their own invention of following rabbis and their teaching. Today in Israel the Jewish men will wear the same hat or head adornment of their rabbi to denote which rabbi they follow.

I don't think this requirsan actual law to be written. The Law can say things without have specific words spelled out if the general teaching of an idea is present.

If Paul meant that the Law specifically spelled out the "submission" practice he is appealing to, then he would be easily and quickly contradicted by those who had the Law memorized, which many people did. If we can't find a specific law, which I don't think we can, then we need to try and understand this in other ways it could have been meant.

I personally don't think "brothers only" meetings are Biblical. That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, but I don't think it's a practice that we see in the Bible. For example, in Acts 15, it was the entire church that decided on the issue of what to do with the Gentiles. They were lead by their shepherds, but the entire church was there.

notreligus said:

The International Standard Version (ISV) of the Bible reads like this:

1Cor 14:34 the women must keep silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak out, but must place themselves in submission, as the oral law also says.

I'll have to search through the 613 commandments (the Mitzvot) to see if the Mosaic Law - the Law referred to by the Jews as the Law because it is dispersed within the first five books of the Bible - the Pentateuch - to see if there is a command for women to be quiet. As the ISV has this translated the reference to law is oral law. Oral law and rabbinic law are much the same thing. The oral law written down is called the Talmud and there are two main versions of that, although they have been somewhat changed because they have very extreme and hateful comments in them directed toward Jesus and the Gentiles. I have a hard time accepting this ISV rendering because I've always viewed Paul's references to the "law" as references to the Law of Moses. If the ISV has the correct translation then Paul referred to the teachings of rabbis and expected that others would understand. The Church at Corinth included Jews, but was mostly made up of Gentiles. You may know this but rabbinical Judaism was in full force, so to speak, when Jesus came. Synagogues and synagogue worship were fully established. Jesus was not too keen on how the Jews had neglected the Temple and He seemed to feel like they had already turned away Temple worship and the priestly authority and had gone to their own invention of following rabbis and their teaching. Today in Israel the Jewish men will wear the same hat or head adornment of their rabbi to denote which rabbi they follow.

Click to expand...

He may mean Roman law. Remember that ekklesia (church) really means "assembly" and was also used in Greek to refer to governmental assemblies, like city councils and such. I remember for sure that Roman law allowed a man to sue a man who slept with his wife and have him put to death for adultery or pay a fine at least, HOWEVER a man was not allowed to so sue if his wife worked in a public occupation because Roman law basically said if she worked in public "it is not possible to commit adultery with her" meaning, the husband gets what he deserves for letting his wife work in public. Paul is obviously influenced by that culture, and I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. We might have a lower divorce rate if we thought about that and considered the Romans may have known a bit more about human nature than our modern society will grant. Can men and women really work in public together and not get into sexual trouble? (or at least the accusation thereof?) Ask the MeToo movement. They're taking us back in the direction of what Rome had back there!!!!! So maybe it was a good thing Paul was influenced by that culture.

In any case as someone said above, when the men meet for these "business meetings" (that's what I always heard them called as a kid) they make a decision, go home, and the chief elders (self-appointed elders, the biggest bullies of the congregation that nobody else dares stand up to because they're the meanest and nastiest) change the decision once they get home to their wife's decision. Yeah, the "business meetings" are based on the principle that a woman is not allowed to speak in the church, but that principle never works in reality because women always run the show in churches, even if from behind the scenes.

Endeavourer said:

So I was studying this some more, and found that the Talmud (the extra-Biblical oral law made up by the Pharisees with many burdens) contains language similar to these verses. It said things like:
--a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff
--a woman is in all things inferior to a man. Let her accordingly be submissive
--a female's voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative
--women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent.
--it is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men.
--the voice of a woman is filthy nakedness
--a woman's speaking is lewd, vile, filthy, decent, foul, dirty and morally degraded

Click to expand...

Sounds like what the laws will be after the MeToo movement is done accusing every man in existence of being a rapist just for existing. We can look back on these "backwards" cultures and think they were just crazy. But I doubt it. This type of stuff was a reaction to women's inability to handle sexual liberation. At some point prior to the Talmud being written, they obviously allowed women to become sexually liberated like America did in the 60s, and it turned into a living hell, because women started falsely accusing men of rape everywhere and began having consensual fornicative sex with losers and then turning around and rescinding that consent after the fact and accusing them of rape, and the rabbis said "Oy vey! Enough is enough. Let's make some really strict laws on women to stop this nonsense." And that's clearly how it happened. And will happen again. History is cyclic.

Endeavourer said:

So I was studying this some more, and found that the Talmud (the extra-Biblical oral law made up by the Pharisees with many burdens) contains language similar to these verses. It said things like:
--a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff
--a woman is in all things inferior to a man. Let her accordingly be submissive
--a female's voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative
--women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent.
--it is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men.
--the voice of a woman is filthy nakedness
--a woman's speaking is lewd, vile, filthy, decent, foul, dirty and morally degraded

Click to expand...

Thinking about this list a little more (btw, can you provide the citations in the Talmud where the items in this list come from?) I want to compare it to historical, or should I say, present day reality.

So the rabbis per your list said that "a female's voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative" which could mean the sound of its softness or whatever, or could mean the content of what women say and talk about, as the last two in the list clearly do, namely "the voice of a woman is filthy nakedness" and "a woman's speaking is lewd, vile, filthy, indecent, foul, dirty and morally degraded"...these clearly refer to the content of what the rabbis have heard women primarily talking about.

Now in our day, what do women talk about? Sex and abortion primarily. Fornication, how much of it they've been having and how defective anyone who isn't having it early and often is in their estimation. All of female conversation seems to be about sex itself, or that which leads up to it (dating). Women love to primarily talk about who is dating who, well that's what they talked about when I was a kid, and now days its who is screwing who, because sexual immorality has become more unleashed over time. They don't typically talk about philosophy or politics, unless its related directly to their sexual immorality and defending it and making it more unleashed, i.e. talk of "abortion rights" and "feminism" and such. If the rabbis who wrote the Talmud passed though a time such as our own, it makes perfect sense that they would write that "a woman's speaking is lewd, vile, filthy, indecent, foul, dirty and morally degraded." And if they ever went to a comedy club and heard something like the V-Dialogues (if I type out the word in full, it'd be auto-censored), where every joke is about fluxes from down below, and such, they would easily write "the voice of a woman is filthy nakedness." And if they heard women constantly virgin-shaming young men for waiting for marriage, and treating them as the garbage and offscouring of the world, they would certainly write "a female's voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative" because they are literally trying to provoke the youth into committing fornication. So these views of the Talmudic rabbis are completely understandable if they come from a period in history very much like the period we are about to pass through in the next 20 years.

In fact, the other statement I didn't mention yet, that "women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent." Is it not "socially embarrassing" to talk about your V all the time and its effluxes, and how many men you've been fornicating with? Is it not "socially embarrassing" (to anyone of sense or morals) to defend abortion? Is it not "spiritually separated from the law of Moses" to defend sex outside of marriage and all other forms of sexual deviancy constantly? It clearly is all of those things. So these rabbis had certainly lived through times like our own and were responding to similar conditions, AND the generation following us will respond to them much the same, whether you like it or not.