If women shouldn't speak at all in church....

[brixken7]

"However, why is it so "shameful" for a woman even to so much as speak? Just because she says something, doesn't necessarily mean she is trying to usurp the authority of men and lawful leadership. It could be said with a submissive spirit rather than a noisy, demanding one. Of course, the pastor's speaking shouldn't be needlessly interrupted during his sermon, and to me, that holds true even for the men in attendance. This concept was taught to most people (both boys and girls) even in elementary school." -- JustaUser

The Greek word translated "shame" is also found in I Corinthians 11:6, where Paul says, "...if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven..." which, I think we can all agree on, DOES look rather unseemly or offensive for a woman to be bald (assuming she's in good health). Likewise, I feel it is SHAMEFUL for Christ to be depicted as having long hair, for it is a "SHAME" for a man to have long hair (I Corinthians 11:14). (Actually, short hair was the custom for men in those days.)

I guess it all goes back to what is considered "UNSEEMLY."

But for a WOMAN to be delivering a sermon in a church is to me as well as the apostle Paul, very unseemly and offensive. It's a SHAMEFUL thing. Not necessarily a "sin," but shameful. So I can understand Paul using such terminology. And not only are women to keep silent, but men too at times ( I Corinthians 14:28).

"I don't think being a mother is the only possible role for women (not that you necessarily meant this), but I agree too that being a good mother is extremely important." -- JustaUser

No man, no matter how talented or inventive, has ever produced anything comparable in importance to a newborn child.


....................................................

 

[JustaUser]

Thanks again for your response, brixken7. I guess what God actually meant by the term "shame" is very important. In English, it seems very negative, but maybe in the original Greek it didn't come across as harsh. I don't know and I haven't researched this. Maybe "out of place" or "inappropriate" would be more like the concept St. Paul was trying to convey, rather than "disgusting" or "vile."

If the KJV English translation had used "inappropriate" instead, I think I would have been less offended, personally. However, I am King James Onlyist in the sense that I believe it to be superior to modern versions (although not perfect and definitely not doubly inspired).

I believe the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Texts to be the perfectly preserved Words of God, but that translations of them can only be so perfect. So, I do believe it is beneficial to return back to the Greek and ancient Hebrew for clarification of words and concepts in the Bible. I am okay with checking out the original Greek to see if Paul didn't actually mean to come across so harshly to women (even while still being very strict with them).

I think I will do that sometime in the future. Thanks again.

 

[cubanito]

The grass always does seem greener on the other side.

Perhaps you would feel different if you were made responsible for providing and protecting, for being willing to lay down your life for your wife. Perhaps the next time a seriously dangerous situation threatens you would like to step forward and be the first one to risk yourself while the men wish you well.

There are groups that have taken an unbalanced view of Scripture and denied a rightful place to women, they go by names like patriarchy and quiverful. I do not agree with them. On the other hand, there are those who refuse to accept the clear limits on a woman's role in the Church. See how long any denomination who ordains women pastor lasts before they deny the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.

Lady, I appreciate your tone in posing these questions. It is not the usual nastiness I have come to expect from the women who seek to replace God's instructions with their own fancies. you will have to make up your mind at some point.

Perhaps you will find a more receptive attitude to women from Islam, or from the Eastern religions where the Yin represents the dark destructive forces of the universe to the male's yang. Or from the atheists who treat their women oh so well in reality.

If you wish a unisex treatment, because the grass is so much greener on the other side, I do hope you will be there when it is time to man up.

JR

 

[SaintJoeNow]

If women shouldn't speak at all in church, not even to sing as the logical conclusion would be since singing is a fancy way of talking, nor should they even so much as ask for clarification on a topic of discussion, why should women even be so much as bodily present in the church, period?

Since they cannot interact during services (if Paul's words are to be taken at face value and literally without trying to make them say something different so as not to offend modern feminist opinions), they are really a distant presence there anyway, like furniture.

The church then is really only a place for men to interact in, not women. If women cannot even understand what is being taught, why are they even there to begin with? If the husband can teach doctrine at home, what is the point of women wasting pew space? They aren't really wanted there even by the logical implication of Paul's (and God's) own words.

Other than taking communion, I see no compelling reason why I as a woman should be required to attend church at all then (in fact I am being more obedient in not polluting it by interacting with it at all under the logical implication of this doctrine, as women will drag down the assembly due to being more prone to deception and usurping the authority of men, even by merely speaking any idea at all, which could easily come from Satan like with Eve. By not being there, I cannot possibly destroy the church ever with my naturally evil female tendencies if I simply stay at home and learn doctrine from a man outside the assembly entirely).

Some website online (I don't have the source now, sorry) argued that the word for ecclessica or assembly is male-only, and the church is indeed really only for men, and women aren't meant to have any influence there at all. Not to speak and not to vote, and of course, not to teach or hold any kind of position of authority.

Women speaking is shameful, and therefore, women being an active presence there is shameful too. If they *must* come, they should act like they don't exist while sitting there, taking God's Word logically, honestly, and literally. So, why should women be there at all? After all, they are more prone to deception and false teaching, and could be tempted to usurp the rightful authority of men even just by sitting there with their mere presence....I really ask this question for those who DON'T believe women should speak in church, ever, like Steve Anderson. However, other opinions are welcome...

Isn't the passage saying that the woman should not be in authority over the man in church? It sounds to me like it is saying Joyce Meyer is in rebellion.
I'm not sure that the guideline for women not speaking in church implies that they are to be entirely silent even in the lobby and foyer.

The shamefulness is implied as it was implied by Deborah who shamed the man who came to her asking her do the dirty work needed for a battle. Deborah agreed to do what she was asked, but she rubbed the man's face in it by saying it will be known that a woman took the lead when the man did not man up to it.

 

[tamtam92]

Hello JustaUser,

Indeed looking into the greek might be helpful.

What I know is the Bible reports *a lot* of what some women have said throughout biblical history -- so when studying the Bible, you might actually find yourself studying the words of women, often inspired by God (as Anne worshipping the Lord in 1 Samuel, or Deborah, or Mary).
When reading the Acts & epistles it seems clear that women were sharing in the life of the church -- though not teaching the group. We see Aquilas & Prisca (Acts 18:26) both teaching Aquilas in private. Both had been in the group that were listening to him before (in the synagogue). I can't imagine women where not singing & praying with the others (actually in Acts 1:14 the women are clearly included in the people praying).

I wonder how a christian woman could stay faithful if she couldn't share in the life of the church as a group. We can't deny there are limits, and we might not understand *why* God gave us those limits (ie not teaching). But it is clear that he loves women as well as men, and he loves to use us at His service as he has shown throughout biblical history.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I am about to get really difficult here, so be warned. I am struggling with the issue of whether God even likes women at all, to be blunt.

God not only likes women, He loves them. If God didn't like women why would He make them in the first place? Just because God has assigned women a different role than men doesn't mean that he doesn't like them. God gave us different spiritual gifts which, though not the same, are equal in value (see 1 Corinthians 12). I'm not going to say more about it since I'm a Catholic and since this isn't the Catholic section of CFs. But I think that Christian fundamentalists can agree with this much.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

I've been a member of my fundamental church for 10 years. I have taught "Ladies Adult Sunday School" for a couple years (lessons prepared by Pastor, presented by me). I have also taught Junior aged girls for several years. I, too, have pondered those verses, which led me first to step down from teaching the ladies and later the children as well. During the last two years I have been the director of our church's nursery. I am still in the nursery twice a week, and I do speak while I am in there. But that is mostly because my ideas and beliefs have evolved so much. However the things I believe that don't line up with what my pastor teaches, those things I am silent about. (I don't believe in undermining authority.)

My heart broke for you when I read this:

I am about to get really difficult here, so be warned. I am struggling with the issue of whether God even likes women at all, to be blunt. God has not answered me definitively on this issue, but I hope someone here has the Spirit of God in them who would be willing to answer me (whether they realize it or not).

We were all made in the image of God. He loves women, He loves us all. God thinks your terrific and so do I

 

[JustaUser]

Thanks for your replies. I think have found two potential "in-between" positions to the most strict one I thought might be true, and none of them seem liberal to me at all, nor "politically correct" and convenient. Perhaps the Bible doesn't actually command global silence from women in all instances while in the church building/meeting, but only silence in directing the congregation as a whole. Thus, two women speaking to each other, with a man, a mother trying to calm an unruly child, or even two rude women gossiping to each other doesn't actually fall under this admonition from Paul.

Women standing up before the congregation to give a speech (not even preaching, just witnessing something), asking a question to the pastor before the whole assembly, or being a song leader would definitely fall under this category according to this interpretation, instead. The key here is that women shouldn't speak to the whole congregation under this view, but can speak to individual members; they just cannot address the church as a whole nor bring attention to themselves via speech to the congregation in any way.

The second idea is that this passage, when reading the context surrounding it as a whole, only forbids women from speaking in terms of teaching, prophesying, and interpreting prophecy. They must refrain from and remain completely silent during these kinds of activities while in church gatherings. Thus, women prophesying and teaching is what is really forbidden here, and not all kinds of speech in general. I think the first interpretation is most likely correct, but the second one seems like a good possibility, too.

These alternative positions don't seem as harsh as what I thought previously. I am not yet sure what the truth is concerning this passage right now, exactly. I am praying about it. Thanks for your support.

 

[Sketcher]

No, it is not a repudiation of women or rejection of them in church assembly. The Bible is speaking of teaching both formally and by speaking out in the gathering. They should not teach or assert their ideas, and should be there even like many men who do not minister, to learn from Bible readings, worship God in singing, silent prayers, and encourage all after the meeting ends. The woman is viewed by God as a picture of the church in subjection to God, and the man is as the OT priest going into the holy place. One should see the whole of the verses on this subject.

Write me at pm if you wish to discuss this in detail, sister. Look up always!

This. Also, in the Roman world, women could sing where they were not permitted to speak. Hence, a prohibition on speaking in a limited context would not have been seen to extend to singing hymns when it would have been time to sing them.

 

[mizzkittenzz]

Its not to say that women should not attend Church, it's not that at all rather it's just that women should not voice opinions or disrupt the Church.

I'm a woman so I mean this with all due respect, but women are quite talkative, they're prone to "gossip", well this kind of stuff don't belong in the Church.

According to the Bible it gives women set rules to live by and men too, we can attend Church, but again we need to not be disruptive and so forth.

 

[Tellastory]

I have another question, though, for those who think women are permitted to speak in church. How do you know that Paul was only approving of women praying or prophesying while OUTSIDE the assembly, rather than within it?

It would seem to me that if Paul's words of women remaining silent are to be taken at face value, this passage should provide the greater context in which the location of women prophesying/praying-out-loud should be interpreted. In other words, according to this view, it should be understood that these women would NOT be performing these activities during church time, but only outside the assembly to make Paul's instruction work. Some reformed theologians, especially in old articles (like from the 19th century), have promoted this view.

What do you make of this?

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

From my understanding as I hope it is done by His grace & by His help, is that God would not lead a believing woman to speak in an assembly when a believing man will do. The reference to Adam was telling that God would give the word first to man.

1 Corinthians 14:4 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. 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. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

We can see what happened when a church let a prophetess lead them.

Revelation 2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; 19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. 20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. 24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. 25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

Altogether, I would say if a woman spoke in tongues that came with no interpretation, I would see why the line has to be drawn to keep believers from committing spiritual fornication of receiving the "Holy Spirit" again after a sign of tongues which happens to comes with no interpretation because it is not of Him at all.

1 Corinthians 14:27 If 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. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

That tells me that tongues will always be followed by interpretation unless otherwise understood by a foreigner.

The underlined portion is testifying that the guy understands what he is saying as God does and thus is just a foreigner speaking out of place and thus out of turn as opposed to 1 Corinthians 14:2 where God's gift of tongues would have the man not understand what he is saying, but God does understand it; not that he is speaking to God when the gift of tongues is of other men's lips to speak unto the people; 1 Corinthians 14:20-21

So even with the men, there is order and decency in the assembly.

But yes, women are free to serve Him in missionary outreach. One could see how God would use them to bring people into the church as well and even bring back those that have not come for awhile, or at the very least, keep in touch with them and encourage them in their walk with Jesus.

 

[goodman528]

... ...So, why should women be there at all? After all, they are more prone to deception and false teaching, and could be tempted to usurp the rightful authority of men even just by sitting there with their mere presence....

I am genuinely intrigued by why you would be a Christian? You seem to be mistreated in the church that you go to, so this is an honest question from me: How did you come to be a Christian?

As for your question about speaking in church, the Bible is actually very clear about this, see: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:12. However, don't you think that it makes no sense to follow these passages literally?! I attended a very fundamentalist Bible study group for over 2 years, where women were literally not allowed to speak, but had to attend with their father or husband. Now I don't go any more because I think a literal interpretation of every single passage in the Bible makes no sense whatsoever. For example, the entire old testament just treats women as property, in the same way women were treated as property back in the bronze age when the old testament was written.

I would recommend that you either enlighten your father / husband / boyfriend to a less literal interpretation of the Bible, or if you are not bound by such a male authority figure then you can go and seek out a more tolerant church.

 

[brixken7]

If women shouldn't speak at all in church, not even to sing as the logical conclusion would be since singing is a fancy way of talking, nor should they even so much as ask for clarification on a topic of discussion, why should women even be so much as bodily present in the church, period?

Since they cannot interact during services (if Paul's words are to be taken at face value and literally without trying to make them say something different so as not to offend modern feminist opinions), they are really a distant presence there anyway, like furniture.

The church then is really only a place for men to interact in, not women. If women cannot even understand what is being taught, why are they even there to begin with? If the husband can teach doctrine at home, what is the point of women wasting pew space? They aren't really wanted there even by the logical implication of Paul's (and God's) own words.

Other than taking communion, I see no compelling reason why I as a woman should be required to attend church at all then (in fact I am being more obedient in not polluting it by interacting with it at all under the logical implication of this doctrine, as women will drag down the assembly due to being more prone to deception and usurping the authority of men, even by merely speaking any idea at all, which could easily come from Satan like with Eve. By not being there, I cannot possibly destroy the church ever with my naturally evil female tendencies if I simply stay at home and learn doctrine from a man outside the assembly entirely).

Some website online (I don't have the source now, sorry) argued that the word for ecclessica or assembly is male-only, and the church is indeed really only for men, and women aren't meant to have any influence there at all. Not to speak and not to vote, and of course, not to teach or hold any kind of position of authority.

Women speaking is shameful, and therefore, women being an active presence there is shameful too. If they *must* come, they should act like they don't exist while sitting there, taking God's Word logically, honestly, and literally. So, why should women be there at all? After all, they are more prone to deception and false teaching, and could be tempted to usurp the rightful authority of men even just by sitting there with their mere presence....I really ask this question for those who DON'T believe women should speak in church, ever, like Steve Anderson. However, other opinions are welcome...

True, women are to have no authority in the church. However, "a woman" (a wife) "ought to have authority over her head,' meaning over her husband (verse 3). And with this authority she is to "rule the household" (I Timothy 5:14; RSV), in "rule in domestic matters" (Weymouth's version).

 

[HonestFisherman88]

I believe this question has been satisfactorily answered further up the thread..The Church in Corinth was experiencing a great deal of disorder, for one, and Paul was addressing this issue...furthermore, we have to understand the culture in which these churches, such as the church at Corinth were steeped .WE have to, as good students, know the difference between a command to certain people, at a certain time..and an all encompassing command for all peoples in all ages..For instance, scripture clearly states that a man should not have long hair, it declares this a shame...yet we know the Judge Samson and ALL Nazarites including prophet Samuel were required to have long hair for the duration of their vows. Why would God allow so shameful a practice to be part of the sacred vow of the Nazarite?
The answer is quite simple with a bit of study. U will find that in asia minor, in many places at the time of Paul's ministry, long hair on men was associated primarily with male prostitution. Paul command was essentially "hey guys, its a shameful thing for members of the Church to look like a bunch of prostitutes" Obviously nobody will be excluded from the Lambs Book of Life based on hair length, and quite a good many Christian men today have long hair and attend church regularly. (i realize this is entirely beside the point...but if u apply this same line of thinking and view scripture in its proper light, u will find that commands for women to be silent are much the same)
Women make up the lions share of church memberships in the United States, and it has been this way for quite some time...Ill even go as far as to say that most of us were first introduced to the love of Scripture by our mothers...Women can absolutely speak in church in the west today...in Asia Minor in 60 a.d. the idea would have been culturally about as well received as a fart in a space suit for many reasons (including the aforementioned lack of understanding among the women of the region due to social constraints, and not to forget to mention it was deemed quite rude for women to address a formal meeting of men, and still is, throughout most of the regions in question..

remember 1 Corinthians 10:23 "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."

The goal is to spread the Gospel, to the four corners of the world and see it accepted in all places...If u are a Church in the Western world, in the year 2015 DO NOT forbid your women to speak in Church!!! this will NOT be expedient to the spreading of the Gospel and the uplifting of the Church...On the other hand, if u are a Church in Syria,Turkey,Iraq,Iran, (pretty much anywhere in the middle east) u will find the culture far less accepting of women teaching, speaking openly in public forums, etc...it would be more expedient to the spreading of the Gospel for the women to remain silent in this situation.
I truly hope i have been able to help highlight the differences between this sort of command and say a command such as "thou shalt not commit adultery" or "thou shalt not kill" God bless, and may u find understanding and peace on this issue

 

[goodman528]

... ... So here's my drive by: look at the Greek please. ... ...

Looking at the original Greek manuscript is a great idea. The oldest 2 pieces of manuscript I could find of 1 Corinthians 14:34 is Codex Sinaiticus:

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/m...hapter=14&lid=en&side=r&verse=34&zoomSlider=0

and this fragment in a Museum in Oxford (UK):
http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/PO.../e81fb290.dir/POxy.v0072.n4844.a.01.hires.jpg

I don't read Greek either, but every translation I can find on this very clearly say women should not speak in church. The specific word speak is very clearly written in Codex Sinaiticus as λαλει. That is modern Greek for "speak". This is not λαλέω (chatter). I don't think we can interpret these very clear written words however we like to suit our current cultural sensitivities. Otherwise Leviticus 20:13 can be translated as "Man shall not lie in the position of the woman when lying with the woman.", because the Hebrew word for word is "man lie the lie(ing) of woman [with] man". That slippery slope will lead you to translate any verse to say whatever supports YOUR view of the world, not God's view of the world.

So clearly I think the best thing to do is to not take the words in the Bible literally, and we should treat ALL (not some) words in the Bible as guidance rather than truth. So in this case although Bible clearly says to not speak, but since it makes no sense to follow it, then you should speak as you wish.

... ... If u are a Church in the Western world, in the year 2015 DO NOT forbid your women to speak in Church!!!... ...

... ...I truly hope i have been able to help highlight the differences between this sort of command and say a command such as "thou shalt not commit adultery" or "thou shalt not kill" God bless, and may u find understanding and peace on this issue

I disagree with your pick and choose approach. You can not pick and choose which verse in the Bible is more important than another verse in the Bible based on the circumstances and culture you live in. Are you God that you are able to tell me Exodus 20:13 (Old testament) is more important than 1 Corinthians 14:34 (New testament)? Are you God that you are able to tell me I should just completely ignore a verse that is clearly written in the Bible because it is no longer relevant today?!

However, I agree with you that women should be allowed to speak in church, in USA, in Europe, even in the middle east! Because we should not take the words in the Bible literally, and we should treat ALL (not some) words in the Bible as guidance rather than truth. So in this case although Bible clearly says to not speak, but since it makes no sense to follow it, then you should speak as you wish.

 

[HonestFisherman88]

I Disagree wholeheartedly with you about the truth of scripture...Sola Scriptura is in my statement of faith and also the only way to really know we have the truth my friend...If God is not just some human mental construct, is He not more than capable of preserving his word? If not, what is the inherent value of Scripture, beyond say the teachings of Gandhi, or for that matter, the Story of Hansel and Gretel? Obviously i do not think it is up to the individual to pick and choose which parts of Scripture are important and which are not...But i do have to correct u, its not Me who picks and chooses which to follow and which to ignore..u realize Paul says women should cover her head when she prays, and i hear nobody proliferating for this, nobody would even think of enforcing that sort of viewpoint...why?
See, it doesnt fit the western value system. Submission of women to husbands however is much more in line with the western ideology. No, my friend, im not a window shopping Christian, but i ask u to turn to 1 Corinthians Chapter 1...are u there? Very Good, now above verse one, pray tell, what does it say? The Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, am i correct? underline the words to the Corinthians if you would be so kind. Does this mean we should disregard it? Surely not, but does it mean that it wasnt written to u and i, and in order to understand the context of this epistle we must study the state and culture of Corinth from 60 a.d.? Absolutely!
U will only find one other place in scripture where Paul speaks of women being silent in church, and that was instruction to Timothy, who was a helper to Paul and a fellow laborer in the Gospel..Paul says to Timothy that He, Paul, will not allow women to speak in church but to remain silent...this is still, not enough to warrant a Church-wide 'thru the ages' doctrine..because both 1 and 2 Timothy are Pastoral Epistles and Paul is advising the young evangelist on how to operate (remember the area of operation is Asia Minor)...Now, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" "Thou Shalt Not Kill" "Thou Shalt Not Steal" "Love Thy Neighbor" "Thou Shalt Not Worship Any Graven Image", these are reverberated time and time again in the Pentateuch, the Prophets, the Writings, the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, The General Epistles..Yes, my friend, context is absolutely important when u read the Scripture, remember that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" but, before u can begin to "Shew thyself approved" you have to study....God Bless you brother

 

[HannahElizaW]

If women shouldn't speak at all in church, not even to sing as the logical conclusion would be since singing is a fancy way of talking, nor should they even so much as ask for clarification on a topic of discussion, why should women even be so much as bodily present in the church, period?

Since they cannot interact during services (if Paul's words are to be taken at face value and literally without trying to make them say something different so as not to offend modern feminist opinions), they are really a distant presence there anyway, like furniture.

The church then is really only a place for men to interact in, not women. If women cannot even understand what is being taught, why are they even there to begin with? If the husband can teach doctrine at home, what is the point of women wasting pew space? They aren't really wanted there even by the logical implication of Paul's (and God's) own words.

Other than taking communion, I see no compelling reason why I as a woman should be required to attend church at all then (in fact I am being more obedient in not polluting it by interacting with it at all under the logical implication of this doctrine, as women will drag down the assembly due to being more prone to deception and usurping the authority of men, even by merely speaking any idea at all, which could easily come from Satan like with Eve. By not being there, I cannot possibly destroy the church ever with my naturally evil female tendencies if I simply stay at home and learn doctrine from a man outside the assembly entirely).

Some website online (I don't have the source now, sorry) argued that the word for ecclessica or assembly is male-only, and the church is indeed really only for men, and women aren't meant to have any influence there at all. Not to speak and not to vote, and of course, not to teach or hold any kind of position of authority.

Women speaking is shameful, and therefore, women being an active presence there is shameful too. If they *must* come, they should act like they don't exist while sitting there, taking God's Word logically, honestly, and literally. So, why should women be there at all? After all, they are more prone to deception and false teaching, and could be tempted to usurp the rightful authority of men even just by sitting there with their mere presence....I really ask this question for those who DON'T believe women should speak in church, ever, like Steve Anderson. However, other opinions are welcome...

In 1 Timothy 2:12 when Paul talks about women not being allowed to speak in church, he was writing to Timothy based on what he knows of the region Timothy was teaching in. By no means did Paul mean towards the entire female based population. In that particulae region, woman were vulgar and not afraid to yell at their husbands distances away even if it was in a secluded place like church..so Paul called against it in that particular writing..

 

[John The Recorder Player]

I believe this question has been satisfactorily answered further up the thread..The Church in Corinth was experiencing a great deal of disorder, for one, and Paul was addressing this issue...furthermore, we have to understand the culture in which these churches, such as the church at Corinth were steeped .WE have to, as good students, know the difference between a command to certain people, at a certain time..and an all encompassing command for all peoples in all ages..For instance, scripture clearly states that a man should not have long hair, it declares this a shame...yet we know the Judge Samson and ALL Nazarites including prophet Samuel were required to have long hair for the duration of their vows. Why would God allow so shameful a practice to be part of the sacred vow of the Nazarite?
The answer is quite simple with a bit of study. U will find that in asia minor, in many places at the time of Paul's ministry, long hair on men was associated primarily with male prostitution. Paul command was essentially "hey guys, its a shameful thing for members of the Church to look like a bunch of prostitutes" Obviously nobody will be excluded from the Lambs Book of Life based on hair length, and quite a good many Christian men today have long hair and attend church regularly. (i realize this is entirely beside the point...but if u apply this same line of thinking and view scripture in its proper light, u will find that commands for women to be silent are much the same)
Women make up the lions share of church memberships in the United States, and it has been this way for quite some time...Ill even go as far as to say that most of us were first introduced to the love of Scripture by our mothers...Women can absolutely speak in church in the west today...in Asia Minor in 60 a.d. the idea would have been culturally about as well received as a fart in a space suit for many reasons (including the aforementioned lack of understanding among the women of the region due to social constraints, and not to forget to mention it was deemed quite rude for women to address a formal meeting of men, and still is, throughout most of the regions in question..

remember 1 Corinthians 10:23 "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."

The goal is to spread the Gospel, to the four corners of the world and see it accepted in all places...If u are a Church in the Western world, in the year 2015 DO NOT forbid your women to speak in Church!!! this will NOT be expedient to the spreading of the Gospel and the uplifting of the Church...On the other hand, if u are a Church in Syria,Turkey,Iraq,Iran, (pretty much anywhere in the middle east) u will find the culture far less accepting of women teaching, speaking openly in public forums, etc...it would be more expedient to the spreading of the Gospel for the women to remain silent in this situation.
I truly hope i have been able to help highlight the differences between this sort of command and say a command such as "thou shalt not commit adultery" or "thou shalt not kill" God bless, and may u find understanding and peace on this issue

May I use the gif you are using as a signature?

 

[John The Recorder Player]

For the lady who has asked the question. Cubanito has pointed to the right track. Knowing the Greek which refers to babbling on, and referring to the usurping of authority from men are the types of speech refused to women in the assembly. Those who read these words in the 2nd century onward would have known the difference. Unfortunately English fails us a bit concerning this portion of Scripture.

 

[Larry Smart]

Just to be clear: are Job8 and 1watchman against women speaking in church, while everyone else who has responded here thinks its fine with God?

I believe Job8 is absolutely correct. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 says, , let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do no permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." This does not mean that women cannot sing or teach women and children. One pastor has opined that the emphasis then, is a positive one, exhorting women to learn quietly and submissively, trusting and working within the framework God assigned. Some people believe that Paul was dealing with a problem in the Corinthian congregation where women had usurped the leadership role and "lording it over men".