The Women Who Ought to Remain Silent in the Assemblies of God

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Women and men are equal, but a wife and a husband are not. Any man that teaches that a wife ought not submit to her husband is in complete and total doctrinal error.

That is up to the husband and the wife. The husband is the head of the house, but he can designate all authority to his wife to do and say what she thinks is best for the family. I've known men who couldn't handle any kind of stress and their wives cover for them.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

The Catholic Church lent you your Scripture... You should show a bit more respect.

I always thought it was the Orthodox that did that.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

There are a few scriptures that instruct certain women to keep silent in the assemblies of God, here is the first verse,


And here is the second verse,


Now, the Greek word for woman is "gyne", which could mean a woman or more specifically a wife. The usage of the word to mean a wife can be seen in this verse,


Now, all women are not wives, since any woman that is unmarried is therefore not a wife, she is a "single woman", as we call it today's day. And if you look closely at the I Corinthians 14:35, you will notice that these women being instructed to "ask their own husbands" are women that are married, because a married woman has a husband. The same applies to the 1 Timothy passage where it says "women will be saved through childbearing", only a woman who is married to a husband will child-bear. Therefore, these passages of women to keep quiet, are not referring to all women, it is referring to wives specifically. Wives are the women that are to keep quiet in the assemblies of God, not all women, or rather, not single women. Why? Because it is the wife's husband that should assume the authority between them two, which is why the passage in 1 Timothy says, "assume authority over a man". This verse isn't saying that women shouldn't be teachers over men, it is talking about wives having authority over their man, their husband, and should thus not teach, because it is her husband the one that should teach, and not his wife.

When a woman becomes married, she comes under submission to her husband,


When a woman comes under the submission of marriage, it is then that she must be quiet. However, if a woman is unmarried, she may indeed speak in the assemblies of God, because she is not under submission to need to be quiet. Even so, marriage will indeed become a former thing, as it is said here,


So does it not stand to reason that if all people that are resurrected will all as be as angels one and the same, not being of the gender of a man or a woman, that indeed God has given just as equal ability for an unmarried woman to teach just as a man? This is why we are encouraged to not marry, because marriage will soon become a former thing, and there will be no distinction between a man or a women in the resurrection, and here is where Paul encourages all who are unmarried or widowed to remain single,


In "to be as myself", Paul was referring to him being unmarried. And even in this verse we also see the same thing concerning marriage,


A man comes to "touch" a woman when he marries a woman. This also coincides with this saying of Jesus,


Now, men and women are not commanded to not marry, but instead, encouraged to not marry, as it is better to remain single to give full devotion and service to the Lord. Yet if a woman does indeed marry and becomes a wife, she must then come under submission and keep quiet in the assemblies of God and not teach.

May God open your understanding. You may also view this study on my blog at http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/01/20/the-women-who-ought-to-remain-silent-in-the-assemblies-of-god/ .

So in your opinion women can't sing in choirs?

 

[cgaviria]

That is up to the husband and the wife. The husband is the head of the house, but he can designate all authority to his wife to do and say what she thinks is best for the family. I've known men who couldn't handle any kind of stress and their wives cover for them.

Who assumes authority is not up to either of them, it is up to God. Therefore, every husband should assume authority over his wife in accordance to scripture. Anything other than this is disobedience to God.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Who assumes authority is not up to either of them, it is up to God. Therefore, every husband should assume authority over his wife in accordance to scripture. Anything other than this is disobedience to God.

How is this authority to be enforced?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Who assumes authority is not up to either of them, it is up to God. Therefore, every husband should assume authority over his wife in accordance to scripture. Anything other than this is disobedience to God.

Please read what I said. As head of the household the Husband can designate authority to whom ever he sees fit. Especially if he is in some sort of diminished capacity. A wife is submitting to her husband in this case. He is just telling her that since she is better than he at certain issues, then she should take charge of those issues.

 

[JackRT]

Today we look back and are aghast at the oppressive patriarchy and yet then and well into new testament times it was accepted without question as "just the way things are". But then there are the dinosaurs who still think that it is written in stone.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Today we look back and are aghast at the oppressive patriarchy and yet then and well into new testament times it was accepted without question as "just the way things are". But then there are the dinosaurs who still think that it is written in stone.

I agree, with the proviso that I assume that remark was not directed against various Orthodox patriarchates.

 

[JackRT]

I agree, with the proviso that I assume that remark was not directed against various Orthodox patriarchates.

When it comes to patriarchy I don't give anyone a free ride.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

When it comes to patriarchy I don't give anyone a free ride.

We've had patriarchs since roughly 33 AD; if by "Patriarchy" you are referring to the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc., then I have to take some exception to your post.

 

[JackRT]

We've had patriarchs since roughly 33 AD; if by "Patriarchy" you are referring to the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc., then I have to take some exception to your post.

By "patriarchy" I refer to any practice that presupposes that women are in any way inferior to men and are thereby excluded from any position of responsibility.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

By "patriarchy" I refer to any practice that presupposes that women are in any way inferior to men and are thereby excluded from any position of responsibility.

That wouldn't be us, then, as a quick reading of the Akathist would show.

 

[JackRT]

That wouldn't be us, then, as a quick reading of the Akathist would show.

It won't happen in my lifetime or yours but it will happen and our great grandkids will read the history and shake their heads and say " what took them so long?".

 

[Strong in Him]

There are a few scriptures that instruct certain women to keep silent in the assemblies of God, here is the first verse,
[34] Let your women in the assemblies be quiet! for it is not committed to their care to speak, but let them be submitted! as also the law says. [35] But if any shall want to learn, in the house, let them ask their own husbands; for it is shameful for women to speak in the assembly.
(I Corinthians 14:34-35 [ABP])

Now, all women are not wives, since any woman that is unmarried is therefore not a wife, she is a "single woman", as we call it today's day. And if you look closely at the I Corinthians 14:35, you will notice that these women being instructed to "ask their own husbands" are women that are married, because a married woman has a husband.

Yes, and it seems that the reason for saying that was that women, who were not allowed to learn and have an education in those days, were listening in the synagogues, wanted to know what was going on, on the answers to some questions and were asking, there and then, instead of waiting til the service was over and then asking, privately, at home. What's more, they may have been asking the nearest man available since Paul says that they should ask their OWN husbands.

The same applies to the 1 Timothy passage where it says "women will be saved through childbearing", only a woman who is married to a husband will child-bear.

Any woman who has sex with a man may bear a child!
Yes, Christians teach that sex be reserved for marriage, and ideally this is what would happen. But it seems to be the norm these days to have a child first and then maybe think about marriage later. The majority people who write letters to problem pages about this matter do not want to know if they should have sex with someone, but when.
This applies even to Christian women who may not see it as a sin to sleep with their fiancé before marriage, or who may have been raped and become pregnant as a result.

Therefore, these passages of women to keep quiet, are not referring to all women, it is referring to wives specifically. Wives are the women that are to keep quiet in the assemblies of God, not all women, or rather, not single women. Why? Because it is the wife's husband that should assume the authority between them two, which is why the passage in 1 Timothy says, "assume authority over a man". This verse isn't saying that women shouldn't be teachers over men, it is talking about wives having authority over their man, their husband, and should thus not teach, because it is her husband the one that should teach, and not his wife.

And yet Priscilla and Aquila both taught Apollos. Yes, I know that that seems to confirm what you are saying, but we don't know how much teaching Priscilla did herself.

Paul lists many gifts of the Holy Spirit; teaching among them. He does not say that this gift is for men only or that any woman who has it may only use it if she is not called to marriage.

When a woman becomes married, she comes under submission to her husband,

That doesn't mean we have to keep quiet, sit in a corner and only speak, or do something, if our husbands give us permission. It means that men are responsible for making decisions - after consulting with their wives, listening to us and showing that they cherish us and value our opinions - and hopefully praying about it too. If the couple then find it difficult to make a decision, it is the husband's responsibility to do so, and our responsibility to support and agree with him and not say "I told you so" if things go wrong.
Paul says that a husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church. Jesus loved us when we were still sinners, he speaks to, helps and guides his church, and listens to our prayers. He doesn't impose his will and tell us that we have to obey.

When a woman comes under the submission of marriage, it is then that she must be quiet. However, if a woman is unmarried, she may indeed speak in the assemblies of God, because she is not under submission to need to be quiet. Even so, marriage will indeed become a former thing, as it is said here,

A woman may speak in the assemblies of God if she is called to do that - same as a man, in fact.

If anyone stood up to preach without having been called by God, submitted that calling to the church to be prayed about and tested and been properly trained and authorised, but was standing up only in their own authority; that would be the time to worry. Such a person could have their own agenda and say anything.

A man comes to "touch" a woman when he marries a woman. This also coincides with this saying of Jesus,

Sorry but I think a lot of problems these days are caused by the fact that men want to "touch" women, full stop. They don't always worry about whether the woman is married - and that also applies to some women and men.

Now, men and women are not commanded to not marry, but instead, encouraged to not marry, as it is better to remain single to give full devotion and service to the Lord. Yet if a woman does indeed marry and becomes a wife, she must then come under submission and keep quiet in the assemblies of God and not teach.

That's how you have interpreted those Scriptures. I am certain that if Paul had meant, "married women cannot teach; if you are called to a teaching ministry, you have to remain single", he could have said so plainly and clearly and removed all doubt. Otherwise a married, female preacher could read your words and divorce her husband. Then she would not be "sinning" by preaching when married - even though divorce is not encouraged either

 

[Imagican]

The Catholic Church lent you your Scripture... You should show a bit more respect.

Oh my. So scripture isn't the 'inspired word of God', but something that belongs to the Catholic Church?????? That's a 'new one' on me.

And then let us consider that the Catholic Church tried it's best to withhold scripture from the 'people' for over a thousand years by murdering anyone that tried to translate it into languages of 'the people'. That's a pretty bold statement.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Strong in Him,

Just a simple question:

If Eve had gone to Adam 'before' eating the fruit, what do you think would have happened?

You say that a woman can speak as she is called to speak in the 'church'.

This is in contradiction to the words of Paul. Was Paul mistaken?

He even states that the words he offered were the commandments of God. Appealed to those he was speaking to that if any considered themselves 'spiritual', they would also agree that the words he spoke were the commandments of God.

There is a 'reason' that women have their place in the church just like there are reasons that men have their place. And it's not up to 'us' to determine our own understanding but to accept that which has been offered.

Now where do you find the Bible offering that women are given permission to 'speak' in the 'church' when they are compelled to?

Not trying to argue with you. I'm just curious as to the source of your offering. Is it Biblical or just your own opinion?

Often I hear: "things change" in reference to the place of women in the 'church'. But I have yet to find where scripture has changed.

Women and men are 'not equal' in the Bible. Equal means 'the same'. Women and men are 'not the same'. They are two halves of 'one'. But they are not equal halves. The Bible offers plenty of information concerning the 'place' of each. It states without confusion that women are to submit to their husbands. It also indicates that children are to submit to their parents. And in general, younger are to submit to elder. All things in order.

And then let us consider what we are offered in reference to single women. The Bible encourages women to wed. And it offers quite a bit concerning those that don't. It speaks of 'gossips' and 'busy bodies' and all sorts of negative behavior in women who do not wed.

While I am not try to say that 'all' women who do not wed are going to end up in a 'bad way', the Bible makes it pretty clear that those that don't are more capable of being led away unto 'fairy tales' and other negative behavior.

I didn't write the Bible. But I can read it and quite a bit of it is perfectly clear when it comes to the 'place of men' and the 'place of women' in the 'church'. Going back to the garden, we are offered quite a bit of information capable of leading us to proper understanding.

Yet some seem intent upon focusing on that which doesn't even exist in the Bible. 'Things change' and 'women' being equal to men. The 'only' thing that the Bible mentions about equality between women and men are the aspect of 'Salvation'. They have both been offered Salvation. But other than that, the Bible makes it perfectly clear that women and men are 'not' equal. For equal means 'the same' and common sense points out that women and men are 'different': not equal.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Oh my. So scripture isn't the 'inspired word of God', but something that belongs to the Catholic Church?????? That's a 'new one' on me.

And then let us consider that the Catholic Church tried it's best to withhold scripture from the 'people' for over a thousand years by murdering anyone that tried to translate it into languages of 'the people'. That's a pretty bold statement.

Blessings,

MEC

To be perfectly fair suppressing translations was more a thing during the Albigensian crusade and the Cathars issue - the back story to that was that heretics were making copies of scripture in order to promote their heresies. Protestants still have their scripture because the Catholic Church existed, and as Commander Xenophon pointed out it wasn't just the Roman Catholic Church it was the Church Catholic, in unity with the East and Orient which preserved and maintained the Scriptures. Your Scripture is as "inspired" as the processes from which it came into being... You're welcome... ;-)

 

[Imagican]

To be perfectly fair suppressing translations was more a thing during the Albigensian crusade and the Cathars issue - the back story to that was that heretics were making copies of scripture in order to promote their heresies. Protestants still have their scripture because the Catholic Church existed, and as Commander Xenophon pointed out it wasn't just the Roman Catholic Church it was the Church Catholic, in unity with the East and Orient which preserved and maintained the Scriptures. Your Scripture is as "inspired" as the processes from which it came into being... You're welcome... ;-)

Amazing the 'stories' people 'make up' in an attempt to justify.

The Catholic Church withheld scripture in an attempt to make merchandise of the congregation. Martin Luther pointed this out which led to the 'reformation'. Or is that just another 'misunderstanding' of the Protestants?

My scripture was written by the apostles and preserved by God, not 'thanks' to the Catholic Church that has done it's best to alter it to suit themselves. King James nor the Scholars that produced the King James version of the Bible were Catholics. King Henry, long before, separated England from Rome.

So your snide attempts to make me indebted to the Catholic Church seem to be more of a 'joke' than anything substantial in 'truth'. Like you are somehow going to indicate that the Catholic Church is more powerful than God. It what God that preserved His Word, not the 'church'.

But that concept you've offered doesn't surprise me in the least. For that is basically what they have taught since their inception: the congregation isn't smart enough to worship God themselves so they are to place their faith in the clergy rather than God or His Son. And then look at how the 'clergy' abused the congregation for many many centuries.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

The Catholic Church withheld scripture in an attempt to make merchandise of the congregation. Martin Luther pointed this out which led to the 'reformation'. Or is that just another 'misunderstanding' of the Protestants?

Yes, it is a misunderstanding. History is considerably more complex than this.

But that concept you've offered doesn't surprise me in the least. For that is basically what they have taught since their inception: the congregation isn't smart enough to worship God themselves so they are to place their faith in the clergy rather than God or His Son. And then look at how the 'clergy' abused the congregation for many many centuries.

Having studied theology I'm very much inclined to think that most people don't have a clue. Those who do, even if their Protestants they show remarkably more respect to the more historical variations of Christianity. Although to be fair everyone is smart enough to worship Christ, how hard is "Love your neighbour and Love God"? It's simple enough, doesn't require a degree or anything. When it comes to complex matters, why don't you just let the specialists handle them?

So your snide attempts to make me indebted to the Catholic Church seem to be more of a 'joke' than anything substantial in 'truth'. Like you are somehow going to indicate that the Catholic Church is more powerful than God. It what God that preserved His Word, not the 'church'.

Oh, it's not snide at all to say that the Reformation was considerably a change in culture and religion rather than a heralding to the pure original. Rather this is the way historians of the Reformation talk about it.

 

[Strong in Him]

Strong in Him,

Just a simple question:

If Eve had gone to Adam 'before' eating the fruit, what do you think would have happened?

That's not a simple question because you're asking me to speculate on what might have been.
But anyway: if Eve had gone to Adam to double check what God had said, (because when she repeated it to the serpent she got it wrong), or to say, "I can't deal with this serpent. YOU heard from God, you tell him what God said", then no doubt Adam would have said to her, "the command I received from our Maker was ........ This serpent is lying and trying to mislead you; don't listen." Then Eve would have been in no doubt about what God had said, and obeyed him.

But those few verses suggest to me that Eve wasn't sure what God had said, as I said, she got it wrong when she told the serpent. We are told in Genesis 2:16-18 that Even hadn't been created when Adam received this command from God, and we are not told that God passed it on to her, directly, when she had been created. So it's likely that she only knew about it because Adam told her, and it could be that she wasn't listening at the time - maybe talking, or thinking about something else. This would explain why the serpent went to her rather than Adam; no point in trying to tempt him, he had heard God speak, directly and plainly. It would also explain why Paul said "A woman should learn ..." (they were not allowed to) "in quietness and submission ........................... FOR Eve was deceived." I suggest that it is hard, if not impossible, to deceive someone who knows the truth - lie to, or contradict, them, yes; deceive, no. Paul is saying here that women should learn so that they know the truth and won't be deceived as Eve was, but that they should learn in quietness and submission; not talking amongst themselves, asking questions of other people or interrupting the speaker and undermining their authority.

You say that a woman can speak as she is called to speak in the 'church'.

This is in contradiction to the words of Paul. Was Paul mistaken?

God is calling, and has called, women to speak and preach. Is God mistaken?

He even states that the words he offered were the commandments of God.

Yes, God most likely did tell him what to write to churches and how to handle certain situations. But Paul doesn't say that this is a command for all churches everywhere, at every time and culture; that no matter how things change, God commands that no woman shall ever preach.

There is a 'reason' that women have their place in the church just like there are reasons that men have their place. And it's not up to 'us' to determine our own understanding but to accept that which has been offered.

And what is our place "in the church"? What is God is calling us to do something else?

Now where do you find the Bible offering that women are given permission to 'speak' in the 'church' when they are compelled to?

WE are the church; believers, not buildings. Those who meet in house groups, open air services, in schools or their places of work, even on Christian Forums, to share their faith and what God has been doing, and ask for prayer, are the church.

Jesus chose a woman to be the first witness to the resurrection. Mary Magdalene went into that room full of men, told them he was alive and gave them a message from him. Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos, Junia, Euodia, Syntyche, Phoebe were deacons, deaconesses and apostles, Philip had 4 daughters who prophesied - and Paul says that women can pray and prophesy.
In the OT Deborah led the nation and settled disputes; she was also a prophetess. In Josiah's day when he wanted a word from the Lord he called his priests who chose to go and consult Huldah, the prophetess. They could have gone to Jeremiah. Huldah gave these men a word from the Lord, Josiah listened and there was a revival in Israel.

If God doesn't want women to speak to, or before, male believers, why is it that he not only allowed these women to do so, but called and raised them up?

Not trying to argue with you. I'm just curious as to the source of your offering. Is it Biblical or just your own opinion?

It's the Bible, for all the reasons I have given, and my own experience because God called me preach more than 10 years ago.

Often I hear: "things change" in reference to the place of women in the 'church'. But I have yet to find where scripture has changed.

God doesn't change; the way he works sometimes does.
If Scripture said, "God's command is that no woman anywhere will ever be allowed to preach or teach", if there had been no female prophetesses or leaders, if Jesus had taught this command as being of great importance and if no woman had contributed to the life of the early church - or since, then I would agree that this was something that God desired, commanded and was very clear about. But that's not the case. Jesus, and Paul could have said very clearly, in unambiguous language, that women had a certain "place" in church or the company of other believers, yet they don't. As I said, Jesus chose a woman to be the first witness of the resurrection. Why? The apostle John apparently stood at the cross; why not him? Why not his 11 disciples?
Of course, that doesn't prove that women are allowed to teach, but the Lord must have had a reason for deliberately allowing a woman to be the first to witness the empty tomb, and for trusting her with the task of telling the male disciples - who were all hiding in a room.

Women and men are 'not equal' in the Bible.

But both are made in the image of God, Genesis 1:27, and both have a right to use the gifts that he has given to them.

Equal means 'the same'. Women and men are 'not the same'. They are two halves of 'one'. But they are not equal halves.

Firstly that implies that a woman is not whole, cannot be whole or the person God made her to be unless she is married.
Secondly, maths isn't my strong point, but how can you have unequal halves? Half means divided in two; 50%. If you cut a cake so it is slightly off centre and one piece is bigger than the other, you have not cut it in half.

It states without confusion that women are to submit to their husbands.

Which is a totally different subject.

And then let us consider what we are offered in reference to single women. The Bible encourages women to wed. And it offers quite a bit concerning those that don't. It speaks of 'gossips' and 'busy bodies' and all sorts of negative behavior in women who do not wed.

No, it says that younger widows should remarry because they have got into the habit of being idle, busybodies and gossipers, 1 Timothy 4:11-14. Incidentally, Paul is not talking about the desirability of marriage here, but considering whether or not they should be eligible for financial assistance from the church. Anyone seeking to apply the whole of the Bible to us today, should take note that the church should not help widows under the age of 60!

And I can assure you that older, married women are just as capable of being gossiping busybodies as younger ones - maybe more so.

I didn't write the Bible. But I can read it and quite a bit of it is perfectly clear when it comes to the 'place of men' and the 'place of women' in the 'church'. Going back to the garden, we are offered quite a bit of information capable of leading us to proper understanding.

Yes, we can all read the Bible, but there is sometimes a lot of difference in understanding and the way we interpret things.
The Garden of Eden describes a situation between husband and wife, not the church. Unless you think that women are immune from carrying out the Great Commission?

Women who preach in church do so because they are called to do so. It is a fallacy to assume that they want to be the same as men or that there is some kind of spiritual one-upmanship going on.