need help with a rebuttal

[Victorian Rose]

this is a qoute from another forum I belong to. Most there are Sola Scripture. Not sure what that is. I am still a baby christian and am not sure how to respond to this below comment even though I know he is wrong. I would love to back up my belief with scripture but am not sure where to find it.

1 Cor 14:35 isn't a good verse to use when trying to prove that women shouldn't speak in church. When it is put into context with the whole of chapter 14, it is obvious that Paul is repremanding the Corinthian Church for having disorderly services. The women of that church added to that disorder by asking questions when the pastor or leader was speaking. In that context the women should be quiet and listen and ask questions after the service is over.

The above quote was my response to the gentleman saying that women weren't to speak in church and he used that bible verse as proof.
His response to the above quote is below.

No Rose, when put into context with the whole chapter it establishes women are not to speak into tongues. This is the most commonly ignored Apostolic command by Charismatics on the face of the Earth. It is one reason they are so easily rejected as false.

I am at a loss. Can anyone help?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The verse is a bit troublesome at first. But consider first other instances where in fact women are told to prophesy and in fact do prophesy:

I offer this from the Peoples New Testament:
1Co 14:34-36 -

Let the women keep silence in the churches. This, in view of other portions of the Scriptures, is confessedly a difficult passage. In 1Ti_2:11-12, We have the same teaching. On the other hand, Deborah was a judge and a prophetess; Huldah was a prophetess; Joel predicted that in the Christian dispensation "the sons and daughters should prophesy" (Joe_2:28), and Peter declared that this was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost (Act_2:4). In addition, the daughters of Philip prophesied (Act_21:9), and in 1Co_11:5, Paul gives directions concerning women prophesying. Probably these apparent discrepancies may be reconciled as follows: (1) Paul's prohibition of speaking to the women is, in the churches; that is, in the church assemblies when "the whole church is come together into one place" (1Co_14:23). It is an official meeting of the church. "Church" in the New Testament always means the ecclesia. It does not apply to such informal meetings as the social or prayer-meetings, but to formal gatherings of the whole body. (2) It may be that even this prohibition was due to the circumstances that existed in Ephesus, where Timothy was, and in Corinth, and would not apply everywhere. If so, it applies wherever similar circumstances exist, but not elsewhere. Both were Greek churches. Among the Greeks public women were disreputable. For a woman to speak in public would cause the remark that she was shameless. Virtuous women were secluded. Hence it would be a shame for women to speak in the church assembly. It is noteworthy that there is no hint of such a prohibition to any churches except Grecian. Wherever it would be shameful, women ought not to speak.


1 Corinthians 14:34-35 LITV
34 Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not allowed to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as also the Law says.
35 But if they desire to learn anything, let them question their husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in an assembly.

When reading these verses, I have to consder in verse 35 where it qualifies the meaning "But if they desire to learn anything, let them question their husbands at home".
So is was a message that women were not to constantly be asking questions during the service. One would have to say that this same restriction would apply to men if they were asking questions all the time. So why bring up the women and not the men? It is suggested that only men received instruction in religion, and the women were in most cases not even taught how to read.
I hope this shed some light.
Blessings
Didy

 

[LynneClomina]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 LITV
34 Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not allowed to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as also the Law says.[/color]

if i may ask a question on this topic....

didy, what does it mean "to be in subjection, as also the Law says"?
in subjection to whom? their husband? the Lord? to order of the church?
as also the law says?

danka
curious, Lynne

 

[Trish1947]

The Apostles were still under the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the years that they were ministering, just like us today. Because if you will notice, one is teaching that women have to remain silent in the church, Then Paul sort of has that idea, then when you keep reading on in the Bible, You find that all of them had women that we're ministering, You have to remember all the Apostles trained up in Judaism, before Christ, that prevented women to teach and preach, their religion was deeply ingrained in their culture, especially Paul, he had a lot to overcome from his teaching. But apparently the Holy Spirit had the final say about it, because eventually they all had women in the Ministry with them.

 

[flyfishing]

Forbid not to speak with tongues, in CHRIST there is neither male or female...

 

[enoch son]

CORINTH did have it problems didn't it. But if one looks at the culture of the city one would see that women in the temple of other gods gave themself to men as a sacrifice (for money). SEX, SEX and more SEX. It is how they grow up. With sex came control. Till the Holy Spirit renewed there minds, I can see why Paul put this in motion. If one looks at the other letter of the NT this teaching is not there.

 

[Victorian Rose]

Thank you didy for your help!

The Apostles were still under the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the years that they were ministering, just like us today. Because if you will notice, one is teaching that women have to remain silent in the church, Then Paul sort of has that idea, then when you keep reading on in the Bible, You find that all of them had women that we're ministering, You have to remember all the Apostles trained up in Judaism, before Christ, that prevented women to teach and preach, their religion was deeply ingrained in their culture, especially Paul, he had a lot to overcome from his teaching. But apparently the Holy Spirit had the final say about it, because eventually they all had women in the Ministry with them.

Trish1947 can you elaborate on this? I wasn't aware that they had women in thier ministries. Where do you find that information?

 

[Perceivence]

I have a related question.

What is 1 Corinthians 14: 36 saying?

34As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

 

[Trish1947]

Rainbow Rose:



The Scriptures plainly teach that deaconesses did minister in the New Testament Church, as with the case of Phoebe: "I {Paul} commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess [NIV fn] of the church {local Colony} in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me" (Rom.16: 1-2, variant NIV).

To reach deaconess status in the church had very high qualifications by the church. Paul giving the qualifications of deacons, and elders he discribes the office as if only to be held by men, but as we can see, he was very much accepting of a women as a deaconess. There is neither "male or female".


On the other hand, it must be observed that God expects of each one the performance of duty as per his or her God-given endowments. Often in the Scriptures we find Paul recognizing women as friends and co-workers in the Gospel (Rom.16:1-4). Paul does not differentiate between Priscilla and her husband Aquila. Rather, he calls them by the same name, sunergos, 'fellow workers' or 'companions in labour'. He does not distinguish between the work each can do because one is male and the other female. Later on in Rom.16:21, he calls Timothy by the same name, sunergos. In Phil.23 he calls all men who were his co-workers, among whom was Luke, by the same name. They are "join heirs of the grace of life" (1 Pet.3:7) -- in no way are they inferior to men in the sight of God.

This link gives a very good discription of conditions at Corinth during that time and the evolvement of the New Testament Church: http://www.nccg.org/women.html

 

[LynneClomina]

its interesting to note that Junia, mentioned in romans 16:7 is actually a feminine name, and was recognised by most of the church fathers as being a female, right up until the 12th century? note:

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

this means then that paul recognized junia, a woman, as being an apostle!!! granted, this is controversial, mostly to people who do not want to let go of the man-made notion that women cant be in any form of church leadership. but why then did the church accept junia as being a female apostle for over 1000 years???

apparantly it was changed in the manuscripts from the feminine "Junia" to the masculine "Junias" around the 12th century at the command of someone (i forget who) that wanted to kill the notion that women were as suited for leadership as men in the church. there are manuscripts dating before that time that were all the feminine "Junia"... there are early church father manuscripts that recognise her as being a woman, they refer to Junia as a "she", etc..... it is important to note that in the greek before the time of Christ and for several hundred years after, there is no documented reference to the name "junias" in any greek literature, implying that there was in fact no "masculine" version of the name at all. meaning that in the 12th century they "invented" the name by adding the "s" at the end, which commonly is used to indicate the masculine....

 

[Victorian Rose]

Thank you Lynne and Trish for the info. I still have much to learn.

 

[perfectlyok2]

Rainbow Rose:



The Scriptures plainly teach that deaconesses did minister in the New Testament Church, as with the case of Phoebe: "I {Paul} commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess [NIV fn] of the church {local Colony} in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me" (Rom.16: 1-2, variant NIV).

To reach deaconess status in the church had very high qualifications by the church. Paul giving the qualifications of deacons, and elders he discribes the office as if only to be held by men, but as we can see, he was very much accepting of a women as a deaconess. There is neither "male or female".

12

xxx
Thats not what my NKJV version Bible says, Romans 16:1-2 states here "I commend to you Phoebe, our sister who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever buisness she has need of you: for indeed she has been a helper of many and myself also."

Nowhere is the word "deaconess" found in that verse, she is a servent (helper) not deaconess. In 1 Timothy 3:12 We can clearly see that one of the qualifications for being a deacon is being male. Phoebe was not a deacon by any stretch of the imagination. Verse 12 says "Let deacons be the husband of one wife, ruling their children and thier houses well." It doesnt seem logical that Phoebe was the "husband of one wife". True, to God there is no male and female, but his inspired word tells us that in the order of His church that deacons will be male.

 

[Trish1947]

12

xxx
Thats not what my NKJV version Bible says, Romans 16:1-2 states here "I commend to you Phoebe, our sister who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever buisness she has need of you: for indeed she has been a helper of many and myself also."

Nowhere is the word "deaconess" found in that verse, she is a servent (helper) not deaconess. In 1 Timothy 3:12 We can clearly see that one of the qualifications for being a deacon is being male. Phoebe was not a deacon by any stretch of the imagination. Verse 12 says "Let deacons be the husband of one wife, ruling their children and thier houses well." It doesnt seem logical that Phoebe was the "husband of one wife". True, to God there is no male and female, but his inspired word tells us that in the order of His church that deacons will be male.

I'm glad that you pointed that out to me. And you are perfectly correct, as far as the NIV and King James. But the New International Version fn (first naritive) did say deaconess, And in the earlier greek text it calls Phoebe a minister, and in later versions, it says deaconess, and in the last translations it just says servant. Does make you think. Why? I certainly would be more apt to believe the earlier texts. Why the watering down of the title status in the church for women? Everyone is a servent. The earlier titles had been held as a correct interpretation for over 1000 years.

But I do find that after the 12th century there was women that had their names changed to refer to a mans name. Might find this interesting.

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]John 1:12: All people, men and women, have the opportunity to become children of God - presumably without regard to gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Acts 2:1-21: At the time of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was described as entering both men and women. In Verse 17, Peter recites a saying of the prophet Joel that talks about sons and daughters; Verse 18 talks about men and women.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Acts 9:36: Paul refers to a woman (Tabitha in Aramaic, Dorcas in Greek, Gazelle in English) as a Christian disciple.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Acts 18:24-26 describes how a married couple, Priscilla and Aquila, both acted in the role of pastor to a man from Alexandria, called Apollos. Various translations of the Bible imply that they taught him in the synagogue (Amplified Bible, King James Version, Rheims, New American Standard, New American, New Revised Standard) However, the New International Version have an unusual translation of this passage. The NIV states that the teaching occurred in Priscilla's and Aquila's home.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Acts 21:9: Four young women are referred to as prophetesses.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Some translations say deaconess; others try to downgrade her position by mistranslating it as "servant" or "helper".[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague." 4[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus and a female apostle, Lunia, as "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) The Amplified Bible translates this passage as "They are men held in high esteem among the apostles." The Revised Standard Version shows it as "they are men of note among the apostles." The reference to them both being men does not appear in the original Greek text. The word "men" was simply inserted by the translators, apparently because the translators' minds recoiled from the concept of a female apostle. Many translations, including the Amplified Bible, Rheims New Testament, New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version simply picked the letter "s" out of thin air. They converted the original "Junia" (a woman's name) into "Junias" (a man's name) in order to warp St. Paul's original writing by erasing all mention of a female apostle. Junia was first converted into a man only in the "13th century, when Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316 CE) referred to both Andronicus and Junia as "honorable men." 5[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]1 Corinthians 1:11: Chloe is mentioned as the owner of a house where Christian meetings were held. There is some ambiguity as to whether the women actually led the house churches. Similar passages mention, with the same ambiguity: [/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The mother of Mark in Acts 12:12, and[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Lydia in Acts 16:14-5, and 40, and[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Nymphain (Col 4:15).[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]1 Corinthians 12:4-7: This discusses gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to all believers, both men and women. The New International Version obscures this message; in Verse 6 is translated "all men", whereas other translations use the terms "all", "all persons", "in everyone", and "in all." [/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]1 Corinthians 16:3: Paul refers to a married couple: Priscilla and Aquila as his fellow workers in Christ Jesus.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation..." (NIV). Again "anyone" appears to mean both men and women.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV) This is perhaps the most famous passage in the New Testament that assigns equal status to individuals of both genders (and all races, nationalities and slave status).[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Philippians 4:2: Paul refers to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as his coworkers who were active evangelists, spreading the gospel.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Philemon 2: Paul writes his letter to "Apphia, our sister" and two men as the three leaders of a house church.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]1 Peter 4:10-11: This passages discusses all believers serving others with whatever gifts the Holy Spirit has given them, "faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms." (NIV) Presumably this would mean that some women are given the gift of being an effective pastor, and should be permitted to exercise that gift.
[/font]

 

[mrversatile48]

Quote:
No Rose, when put into context with the whole chapter it establishes women are not to speak into tongues. This is the most commonly ignored Apostolic command by Charismatics on the face of the Earth. It is one reason they are so easily rejected as false.

In interdenominational Bible College, & in several good churches - wherever I've heard the ban explained, it was, in fact, because of the classic seating arrangement in synagogues - men sat 1 side & women opposite

What Paul banned was women calling across the room, interrupting what was going on

 

[LynneClomina]

12

xxx
Thats not what my NKJV version Bible says, Romans 16:1-2 states here "I commend to you Phoebe, our sister who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever buisness she has need of you: for indeed she has been a helper of many and myself also."

Nowhere is the word "deaconess" found in that verse, she is a servent (helper) not deaconess. In 1 Timothy 3:12 We can clearly see that one of the qualifications for being a deacon is being male. Phoebe was not a deacon by any stretch of the imagination. Verse 12 says "Let deacons be the husband of one wife, ruling their children and thier houses well." It doesnt seem logical that Phoebe was the "husband of one wife". True, to God there is no male and female, but his inspired word tells us that in the order of His church that deacons will be male.

"servant" in romans 16:1...(from strongs kjv lexicon)
Original Word Word Origin
diavkonoß probably from an obsolete diako (to run on errands, cf (1377))
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Diakonos 2:88,152
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
dee-ak'-on-os Noun

Definition
one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister ;
the servant of a king ;
a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use ;
a waiter, one who serves food and drink


diakonos, the word for deacon, is here used in regard to a woman... note that "deacon" is a transliteration of "diakonos".... which means, servent... deacons in a church are servents, it is nothing more elevated than your average, ordinary servent joe, just more formal, more responsibility....

 

[perfectlyok2]

"servant" in romans 16:1...(from strongs kjv lexicon)
Original Word Word Origin
diavkonoß probably from an obsolete diako (to run on errands, cf (1377))
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Diakonos 2:88,152
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
dee-ak'-on-os Noun

Definition
one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister ;
the servant of a king ;
a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use ;
a waiter, one who serves food and drink


diakonos, the word for deacon, is here used in regard to a woman... note that "deacon" is a transliteration of "diakonos".... which means, servent... deacons in a church are servents, it is nothing more elevated than your average, ordinary servent joe, just more formal, more responsibility....

I see all of your definitions, and I undersand that yes, we are all servants, however no matter how you look at it 1 Timothy 3:8-13 gives us clear qualifications of being a deacon and one of those is being male (v. 11-12). Phoebe was a servant just like anyone else but by no means a deacon.

 

[Victorian Rose]

I see all of your definitions, and I undersand that yes, we are all servants, however no matter how you look at it 1 Timothy 3:8-13 gives us clear qualifications of being a deacon and one of those is being male (v. 11-12). Phoebe was a servant just like anyone else but by no means a deacon.

So, are you saying that women do not have the right to be leaders or pastors in a church?

 

[perfectlyok2]

So, are you saying that women do not have the right to be leaders or pastors in a church?

Well lets go to the scriptures and look at this, and lets us remember that these words are the inspired words of God and not of man. 1 Timothy 2: 11-12 tells us that women are to "learn in silence with all submission."(v.11) "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."(v. 12) It seems by this scripture alone that women are not allowed to be a pastor or preacher, because would they not then be teaching men with authority over them? Yes they would, I dont care what anyone says this is as plain as it gets. Then referring back to 1 Cor. 14:34 "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." Verse 35 says that it is "shameful for women to speak in church." Again, I reiterate that this is very plain language. If a woman is preaching a sermon she is not "keeping silent" or "not speaking" so to answer your question using very basic common sense, judging by these scriptures (inspired word) that women are not to be vocal leaders over men in the church. She should "learn in silence with all submission."

 

[Trish1947]

By your post it appears that if a women speaks in a church, under the instruction of the Holy Spirit, you assume that she's over lording it over a man.

She's to be in subjection to her husband, as the positions ordained by God in a family, not men in general who are partners and co workers in the faith. We all have received the same Holy Spirit. But one gets to minister, healings, prophacy, and other callings of the Holy Spirit, because he's a man? While women have received the same gifts of God. But have to sit there and not use them? To me that is far beyond reasonable. Sounds like to me God would only have 50% effective church. Or are you saying that these particular gifts are not bestowed on women either?

In our church we have about 3 women that can give a message in tongues, and 3 men that can interpret..all done in proper order. And no one gives it a thought about the women speaking, especially when the men are the interpreters. Seems to be a real nice balance. Then sometimes the men will give the message in tongues and a women will interpret. It's the choice of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Victorian Rose]

I am wondering, perfectlyok2, if you are charismatic? The reason I ask is that I don't see where you have posted in the first thread on this board.