1 Corinthians 14:34

[Ave Maria]

Hi everyone. This verse is confusing me. Is it a total ban on women speaking in church? If so, what about Sunday School teachers who are women and the part of the service when they ask if there is any prayer requests. Or during Sunday School for adults, are women not allowed to speak their opinions? Can someone please help me interpret this. Thanks!

[bible]1 Corinthians 14:34[/bible]

 

[filosofer]

Perhaps the context can help. The entire section from 11:2-14:39 is about aspects of worship. Note 11:5. And in 12:1-12:31 the discussion about spiritual gifts is not given with regard to gender. Yet, there are controls on the use of gifts (1 Cor. 13 is that love controls gifts). And 1 Cor. 14 is about other controls (self, and the leadership of the congregation) in the exercise of the gifts. Thus, while a woman can prophesy, she cannot sit in judgemnt of prophecy (that is what 1 Cor. 14:34 and context isabout); that responsibility is for the male leadership. Note that this does not "limit" or "put down" a woman any more than it does a man. Keep in mind that most men cannot exercise that judgment either.

 

[daveleau]

Most Baptists see this as a culture specific Scripture. In a similar fashion to the holy kiss greeting being translated to a hug or handshake because it was culture specific. Most Baptists do not make women in the congregation wear head coverings. They do not make women stay silent, but only restrict them from the pulpit. The issue that makes most theologians believe that it is culture specific is two fold: 1) women did not receive any education in biblical times 2) women were viewed as second class citizens in biblical times. Both of these issues have changed, which makes most believe that women's places in church are different than spoken about by Paul in Scripture.

 

[Ave Maria]

Most Baptists see this as a culture specific Scripture. In a similar fashion to the holy kiss greeting being translated to a hug or handshake because it was culture specific. Most Baptists do not make women in the congregation wear head coverings. They do not make women stay silent, but only restrict them from the pulpit. The issue that makes most theologians believe that it is culture specific is two fold: 1) women did not receive any education in biblical times 2) women were viewed as second class citizens in biblical times. Both of these issues have changed, which makes most believe that women's places in church are different than spoken about by Paul in Scripture.

But God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God. What evidence do we have that this was only cultural and that it is not meant to be applied today? What context was this taken in during the early church?

 

[daveleau]

Yes, but there are issues that are culture bound and some that are timeless. Most are timeless, but certain ones, like the Holy Kiss greeting aredefinitely time bound. To kiss another man in the congregation would not bring about the same result as it would back then. Hence, the handshake or hug has been used. Most Baptists believe that this issue is the same.

In looking at Scripture, you must look for the author's intended meaning. In looking for this meaning, you must look at the context first, then the historical and lexical aspects and then the context of the entire Scriptures. In looking at this, the context helps slightly, but the biggest aspect that helps us to know what the author was talking about. The history of women in biblical times could have a huge bearing on the intended meaning.

I do not like to change Scripture to fit today's social ideologies. As a matter of fact, I detest that practice. But, there is a basis for this in this passage that is widely held by Baptists and many other Christians throughout the country.

God is the same. The passage you are discussing does not describe God, but our actions. Why did God want us to not have women speaking in church (not leading, but speaking)? Women's prayers are just as pleasing to God.

Another historical action was that the Corinthians had a Gnostic influx that Paul was writing in response to. It is believed by most theologians that Paul was replying to a letter where problems in the Corinthian church were in need of correcting. The Gnostics were led by Priestesses that would lead the churches. This is another issue that is affecting this passage.

I hope this helps. God bless you.
Dave

 

[daveleau]

If it is not good for women to speak in church (church is not a building but anytime a group gets together to worship Him), then Jesus broke this several times, including the time He sent the woman at the well to the city in Samaria to bring the people of the city to Him.

 

[Ave Maria]

So I am guessing that this is more of a thing that says that women are not to disturb the services. Is this assumption correct?

 

[JohnJones]

It is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Cor 14:35) That has nothing to do with disturbing or not disturbing the service - it's a shame either way.

If it is not good for women to speak in church (church is not a building but anytime a group gets together to worship Him), then Jesus broke this several times, including the time He sent the woman at the well to the city in Samaria to bring the people of the city to Him.

Nope.

(1) The church did not exist until Pentecost. Matt 16:18 Jesus said "I WILL build My church."

(2) Jesus did not "send" the Samaritan woman. You need to read John 4 again.

 

[daveleau]

John 4:35 Jesus talks of reaping the harvests of souls that He had reached through the testimony of the Samaritan woman. She ran off as they spoke. Jesus did not say "send me a man to speak with" or "I can not speak to these because they were reached by a woman". He reaped the harvest of souls and it is my belief that that was His intent. He knew exactly what she was going to do (run off and tell everyone), just as He knew what had happened in her life before. If it was wrong for her to spread the Word, then He would have never spoken with her. Instead, He displays His desire to speak with the lowest of the low (she was a woman in Samaria going to a well well outside of her town during the hottest part of the day. She was an outcast because of her promiscuity and was so undesirable that she had to walk a great distance outside of her town to get water at the worst time of the day. No one went to wells at noon.)

Holly,
That's not what I was getting at. I was saying that there are 3 major things that have changed from the biblical society of the time to today that we should consider:
1) the Gnostic problem begun by priestesses (women) in Corinth
2) the view of women at that time
3) the education level of women at the time
I believe that this is culture specific and bound by these things int he same way that a greeting with a holy kiss is bound by that culture. Remember that Paul is responding to issues he has learned about in the Corinthian church. These are specific issues and the Corinthian problem of Gnostic priestesses speaking in church was what Paul was addressing. I believe that women can lead in a church as long as they are not in the pulpit (Sunday school/ Bible study, etc.). I have seen nothing that leads me to believe that women should be pastors. Of course, God has worked through women pastors in the recent past, but I do not think this is what He wants. The passages in Ephesians and Corinthians tell us a lot about what women are supposed to do. I believe that the history behind these issues in 1 Cor give us a full picture of what Paul intended for the Corinthians and what God wanted to be gleaned from these Scriptures. These specific passages simply do not apply to us. In exegeting a passage, we have to look at all facets to determine how we would apply it today. In looking at the historical aspect and how women are used in other areas of the world during Jesus' time, we should look at all Scripture and all the other revelations that God has given us to determine what is meant.

I hope this is clearer.
God bless and have a great weekend!
Dave

 

[daveleau]

PS- we discussed this at length in our hermeneutics class at Liberty. It is an interesting topic and is one that is not absolutely certain either way. We have to remember to take all Scripture into account rather than focusing on this one passage for this theological dilemma. The Scriptures speak loads about a woman's activity through actions of women and Jesus' actions towards them. This passage seems to contradict the righteousness of many other happenings in Scripture. Hence, the historical background takes the contradictions out of play and makes for a more harmonious interpretation of Scripture as a whole.

 

[daveleau]

PSS- (I've been thinking about this all day) Gal 3:28 says there is neither male nor female in Christ. This goes to further support the idea that this was a specific issue in the Corinthian church as I said above.

 

[filosofer]

PSS- (I've been thinking about this all day) Gal 3:28 says there is neither male nor female in Christ. This goes to further support the idea that this was a specific issue in the Corinthian church as I said above.

If you take into consideration the context of Galatians, and this specific passage, then this has nothing to say about the present issue. With regard to the relationship with God there is "neither male nor female". But note, that relationship with God does not deny the maleness or femaleness of the person. Thus, Gal. 3:28 is not all-encompassing in its scope. We can't make it more than it is.

 

[Tavita]

(Rom 16:7) Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

In the margin of my NASB version the name Junias means 'or Junia (female)'.

I've often wondered, is this talking of a female Apostle?

 

[xsynerinc]

Hi everyone. This verse is confusing me. Is it a total ban on women speaking in church? If so, what about Sunday School teachers who are women and the part of the service when they ask if there is any prayer requests. Or during Sunday School for adults, are women not allowed to speak their opinions? Can someone please help me interpret this. Thanks!

1 Corinthians 14:34Let 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.

1cor.14

first of all, it had to do with subjects spoken of in this particular chapter.. or does Paul state that same thing in every letter that he wrote to every other church?
so if these things are not done in your church then how can the above verse apply?

on the following-
(are these gender specific? or do to gramatics?)

vs.28
if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church..

vs.30
if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent..

vs.32
the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets..

vs.33
for God is not a God of confusion but of peace..

vs.34
let the women keep silent in the churches for they are not permitted to speak but let them subject themselves just as the law also says.

which law?
is Paul speaking of some law in the old testiment?
how can they apply to this situation when they never had such things going on in their congregations in those days?

what law then?
the law of grace. see vs.35 farther below.

vs.35
if the women desire to learn anything.. (verse continued farther below)

going back up a few verses for comparison-
vs.23
if the whole church should assemble together and all speak in tongues and the unlearned enter will they not say that you are mad?

vs.24
but if all prophesy and the unlearned enters they are convicted by all and called to account by all.
vs.25
for the secrets of their heart are disclosed.

the women were unlearned concerning these things that went on in the church.
Paul was saying that there are times in each case when its proper for any to be silent.. and the unlearned are no exception.

vs.35 - paraphased.
these women, being unlearned and therefore disrupt .. let them ask questions and take teaching in proper church behavior from their husbands at home so that when they come back they will be silent in those particular places when silence is required.
for it is a showing a lack of grace for the unlearned in these things to speak in a disrupting manner in church.

in no way did Paul say that all woman should never speak in a church assembly.
legalistically that would prevent her from worship or assembly prayer.. or making announcements or whatever.

and legalism is far different from grace.

so. get training. and any woman can participate in these things of the operations of the spiritual gifts.

 

[filosofer]

vs.35 - paraphased.[/color]
these women, being unlearned and therefore disrupt .. let them ask questions and take teaching in proper church behavior from their husbands at home so that when they come back they will be silent in those particular places when silence is required.

Just a thought. It might be a good idea to stay with translating the text before trying to import into a paraphrase what you (or someone else) might want to contend.

 

[JohnJones]

John 4:35 Jesus talks of reaping the harvests of souls that He had reached through the testimony of the Samaritan woman. She ran off as they spoke. Jesus did not say "send me a man to speak with" or "I can not speak to these because they were reached by a woman". He reaped the harvest of souls...

Are we to allow a robot to speak in the church because if a robot spake to a man and he learned about Jesus thereby we could not reject him on the basis that he was taught by a robot? No.

Are we to allow a donkey to speak in the church because if a donkey spake to a man and he learned about Jesus thereby we could not reject him on the basis that he was taught by a donkey? No.

Are we to allow a homosexual to speak in the church because if a homosexual spake to a man and he learned about Jesus thereby we could not reject him on the basis that he was taught by a homosexual? No.

Are we to allow those who teach merely from spite to speak in the church because if those who teach merely from spite spake to a man and he learned about Jesus thereby we could not reject him on the basis that he was taught by athose who teach merely from spite? No.

Are we to allow a woman to speak in the church because if a woman spake to a man and he learned about Jesus thereby we could not reject him on the basis that he was taught by a woman? No, because Scripture says it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

You see the mere fact that a person once taught is not to be rejected does NOT mean that the teacher has a right to teach in the church, nor that the teacher is right with God, nor that God is even pleased that they are teaching. This is assuming, of course that the teaching was even correct, it is doubtful that in any of the above cased it would be.

 

[mark kennedy]

You have to understand that in Corinth they were all talking at the same time. They were just babbling throughout the service and it was utter confusion. I honestly believe that a woman as no place in a pulpit as an evangelist, prophet and certainly not as a pastor. During the service she should sit and listen and not asking a lot of questions during the service, that is really the whole point of the passage. Corinth was in utter chaos and Paul tells them that everything should be done decently and in order.

This in no way diminishes a womans ministry capability since the Gospel can be expressed a lot of different ways and some of them even involve actually addressing a group of people. She can speak of course to give her testimony, offer a prayer or sing a song, there is nothing wrong with any of these things. Teaching a Bible study or even giving a message is not really a problem but she need not hold to office of Pastor or evangelist in order to edify the church. A woman has far more effective ways of doing that. Women are gentle, attentive longsuffering and nurturing and it is their nature to be a help meet not a preacher.

Women can say more without words then men can with long speaches, they should be honored as ministers of the Gospel who say more with their conduct then men do with their words.


Do you remember Mary Magdalene because of here sermons or her deeds. She didn't preach at Pentecost but she was the first living witness of the risen Savior because she was tending to the crucified Christ. She said very little but here testimony speaks to us with more then words, this has been the case throughout redemptive history. A woman should keep silent in the church but that in no way diminishes her testimony, she speaks by her gently and quiet spirit. That is a powerfull witness.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[filosofer]

Hi, Mark. I agree with much of what you write. However, concerning this:

You have to understand that in Corinth they were all talking at the same time. They were just babbling throughout the service and it was utter confusion.

This is an assumption about the conditions of the church(es) in Corinth, not established fact.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi, Mark. I agree with much of what you write. However, concerning this:


This is an assumption about the conditions of the church(es) in Corinth, not established fact.

Point taken, I was making a general statement based on the tone of the overall message. One thing is for sure, the Corinthians were carnal and Paul's tone is harsh. This is the verse I had in mind:

"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hat a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hah an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying" (ICor. 14:26)

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[JohnJones]

Women can say more without words then men can with long speaches

Good. Then they'll have a vital role in the church and they wont have to break the Scriptures to do it, nor will they have to bring shame on the church to do it "for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" just like "it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of [sinners] in secret," although most people ignore that fact just as much as the other.

Do you remember Mary Magdalene because of here sermons or her deeds. She didn't preach at Pentecost but she was the first living witness of the risen Savior because she was tending to the crucified Christ. She said very little but here testimony speaks to us with more then words, this has been the case throughout redemptive history. A woman should keep silent in the church but that in no way diminishes her testimony, she speaks by her gently and quiet spirit. That is a powerfull witness.

AMEN. But don't you realize that once a woman starts speaking in the church all her testimony that she's amassed by her works flies out the window because all right-minded Christians say "if she was truly sincere she'd obey 1 Corinthians 14." So, I don't see how you can make the statement above quoted and still defend women speaking in the church as Scriptural.