Women Keeping Silence: What I Teach

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Biblically, God has placed men in leadership roles, and they are indispensable in their role. Women have an indispensable supporting role.

I see women as a mainstay and glue that holds all together.
We are the keepers of the home. We are the main ones who raise and teach the next generation, the future leaders of the church and the world.
We are the ones who make life joyous in facilitating fellowship through the ministry of hospitality. We support other women in their roles as wives and mothers.

We also have an important role, like the Samarian women at the well, to go tell all what Jesus has done for us, sharing the gospel and testifying to the lost.
Via prayer and fasting God directs and leads us to be a witness for him as we go about our day.

Women are vital to the kingdom of God.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Okay, so Bro. Cunningham, Brother Bernard and Stoneking are wrong and you don't walk in unity with the UPCI. Got it!

And? What is the UPCI compared to the Body of Christ? To the Kingdom of God?

Furthermore, have you never read the compliment paid to our Lord Jesus, how He didn't regard the person of any man (Matthew 22:16 and Mark 12:14)?

See also Galatians 2:6. These men, with whom I have no personal affiliation or particular issue with, nonetheless, add nothing to me, regardless of who they are.

diakonos
dee-ak'-on-os
Probably from διάκω diakō (obsolete, to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, that is, (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): - deacon, minister, servant.

The term "deacon" is applied to Phoebe and probably designates an "office" as it does in Philippians 1:1 "Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:"

It can also mean "minister" in the same sense that Paul uses it elsewhere of himself and others:

I Cor 3:5 "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?"

2 Cor. 3:6 "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

2 Cor. 6:4 " But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,"

Your being stuck on numbers, i.e., wanting a list of women in the Bible, doesn't change anything.

You realize that, as Peter showed, diakonos is a multivalent term. And not only this, is gendered as applied to a man or a woman? When gendered to men, the definition you gave above applies. When gendered to a woman, it refers to the very things Peter wrote.

Take another read through 1 Timothy 3 for the qualifications Paul lays out for deacons, and you will see those qualifications apply to men only, thus showing the difference. Then take a look at 1 Timothy 5 regarding widows and young women. The widows who Paul commends to the church dole are not commended for preaching and teaching, but for charitable contributions to the lives of the saints. The younger women Paul orders as follows:

1.) Get married
2.) Have children
3.) Guide the affairs of their household
4.) Don't live in such a way that the devil could reproach them

Is this inspired text or just one man's opinion? Did the Holy Spirit tell Paul to write these injunctions or not?

And what are so many young women of today in Pentecost, particularly the UPCI told?

1.) You can preach and teach as much as any man. Deborah Project, anyone?
2.) Go to college and get a degree
3.) Find a career/pursue your calling

Which is right? Which is Holy Scripture? Which then pleases God? Which pleases flesh?

Finally, as far as numbers go, you below explain how Priscilla's name is listed 6 times before Aquila's, like it means something important. So, who's caught up on numbers?

The fact is, is if your position was right, it would be thoroughly maintained from Genesis to Revelation. Instead you have a handful of stretched beyond the limits of credibility examples that don't jive at all with the rest of the testimony of Scripture, just to fit your modernized, liberated view of women's roles and rights in the church ("The NT emancipated women...").

It is used in the sense of a spiritual gift and also speaking an inspired message.

And what's that got to do with preaching and teaching in the church?

The reality is, prophesy in Joel 2:28 is used in the prophetic sense of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance per Simon's quote of it in Acts 2:17. Do you really think that when someone, a woman no less, is speaking in tongues for the first time as he or she receives the Holy Spirit, that means they are preaching and teaching in the sense of administering the Word of God?

For real?

So, when little children receive the Holy Spirit and speak with other tongues, they are now preachers and teachers of the Word, and all the adults and elder should heed them and their instruction?

Besides all this, no one even understands what people are saying when they prophesy under the auspices of Joel 2:28 and Acts 2:17, so the point is clear:

They are not preaching, or teaching. This is just another unjustified stretch.

We can also talk about Priscilla whose role in the church may account for her name coming before her husband's in four of six references - Acts 18:18; Romans 16:3 (notice both Priscilla and Phoebe are mentioned in this chapter); 2 Timothy 4:19.

Her role MAY account? All these things you are writing are couched in terms of supposition and possibility. That is, GUESSES. That's all you've got are guesses? Where's the sure word of prophecy? Where's if anyone speaks, let them speak as the oracles of God?

How can anyone think that just because Priscilla's name is written first that some major doctrine of the Bible is being revealed? Shall we then find all examples where one word or name is listed before another and make a teaching out of it? That's how rabbis derive their Talmudic mysteries, but that's not how Apostolics exegete the Word.

The bold shows where you truly enter the conversation. How blind.

Just be real, here. You can't possibly believe 1 Timothy 2:11-12 means what it states.

Note the text carefully:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

How is a woman going to do this with a microphone in her hand as she sermonizes a room full of men?

But I suffer not a woman to teach,

This is an independent clause, meaning, it stands on its own without needing any additional information to be added. If Paul didn't go on to write anything else after this, it would stand true on its own merits. Meaning, independently of what comes after, Paul doesn't allow women to teach in the church, period. End of story.

nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

This is a dependent clause, that is, it depends on the independent clause that proceeds it. Meaning, this clause is not merely defined and understood on its own merits, but only in relation to the previous comments, that is, "I suffer not a woman to teach".

Now, notice this next part, because it is key:

See Paul's use of "nor"? It is in Greek from the word οὐδὲ, or oude. It is a compound of ou (meaning "not") and de (meaning moreover).

As such, it rightly reads "nor", not "or" in English. So then, what is the "moreover" that a woman is "not" to do? Moreover refers to the independent clause. Not only is a woman not to usurp authority over a man, but she is not even to teach. Why?

Because teaching is the purview of men only. For a woman, any woman, to teach the church is an automatic failure because it automatically usurps the authority given by God to men alone.

So you can't have a woman teaching and not usurping at the same time. A woman teaching and usurping is sine qua non with each other. Hence, the turn of a phrase I employed regarding ministerial man-pants is entirely justified here, even if you find it unpalatable.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/2-12.htm
See: https://biblehub.com/greek/3761.htm

And this is where we disagree.

Fair enough.

I Corinthians 14:34 "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."

This verse is referring to Genesis 3:16 "And thy desire shall be to they husband, and he shall rule over thee."

It isn't specifically speaking of sexual things, as is apparent.

No, it refers to the law of the synagogue, specifically to the law of the mechizah, as an outgrowth of the temple structure of women being separated from men, having their own court specific to them.

And as far as the sexual imagery goes, the phrase "thy desire shall be" is where the text is at. It's the same desire sin had toward Cain. And so, whenever a woman lusts in her heart to rule over and usurp a man and his God-given role, it's because sin has already lusted after her and conquered her, just like Cain. Therefore, God instituted that men shall forever rule over women. It protects women from the works of their flesh and the deceivableness of sin that is always present.

Okay. I agree that you are wrong.

Touche.

[votivesoul]

Peter from Greece!

You are doing a great job in this thread. Thank you for your contributions!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by peter83

Sorry sister ,that i write you again (i dont know why,but you never respond back to me!! maybe you did not saw it, but iven if you have nothing to say, you can always say one "thanks)

Thanks.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

And? What is the UPCI compared to the Body of Christ? To the Kingdom of God?

Furthermore, have you never read the compliment paid to our Lord Jesus, how He didn't regard the person of any man (Matthew 22:16 and Mark 12:14)?

See also Galatians 2:6. These men, with whom I have no personal affiliation or particular issue with, nonetheless, add nothing to me, regardless of who they are.

My point is that you stressed that it is unbiblical not to be in unity. I am in unity with the body that God has placed me in.

You realize that, as Peter showed, diakonos is a multivalent term. And not only this, is gendered as applied to a man or a woman? When gendered to men, the definition you gave above applies. When gendered to a woman, it refers to the very things Peter wrote.

Take another read through 1 Timothy 3 for the qualifications Paul lays out for deacons, and you will see those qualifications apply to men only, thus showing the difference. Then take a look at 1 Timothy 5 regarding widows and young women. The widows who Paul commends to the church dole are not commended for preaching and teaching, but for charitable contributions to the lives of the saints. The younger women Paul orders as follows:

1.) Get married
2.) Have children
3.) Guide the affairs of their household
4.) Don't live in such a way that the devil could reproach them

Is this inspired text or just one man's opinion? Did the Holy Spirit tell Paul to write these injunctions or not?

And what are so many young women of today in Pentecost, particularly the UPCI told?

1.) You can preach and teach as much as any man. Deborah Project, anyone?
2.) Go to college and get a degree
3.) Find a career/pursue your calling

Which is right? Which is Holy Scripture? Which then pleases God? Which pleases flesh?

Finally, as far as numbers go, you below explain how Priscilla's name is listed 6 times before Aquila's, like it means something important. So, who's caught up on numbers?

The fact is, is if your position was right, it would be thoroughly maintained from Genesis to Revelation. Instead you have a handful of stretched beyond the limits of credibility examples that don't jive at all with the rest of the testimony of Scripture, just to fit your modernized, liberated view of women's roles and rights in the church ("The NT emancipated women...").

Speaking to women in general doesn't mean that they do not have various roles, such as the Elect Lady in 2 John, Priscilla, Phoebe, Phillip the evangelist's daughters in Acts 21, and others not mentioned. We know there would be more, as the NT mentions other men, but not all who were doing a work for God. The NT doesn't even have room for the books written on the things that Jesus performed.

And, BTW, Deborah held a position as a Judge in the OT. She served ancient Israel as a prophet, judge, military leader, songwriter, and minstrel (Judges 4–5). If God was so against women in a leadership role, what about her?

And what's that got to do with preaching and teaching in the church?

The reality is, prophesy in Joel 2:28 is used in the prophetic sense of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance per Simon's quote of it in Acts 2:17. Do you really think that when someone, a woman no less, is speaking in tongues for the first time as he or she receives the Holy Spirit, that means they are preaching and teaching in the sense of administering the Word of God?

For real?

So, when little children receive the Holy Spirit and speak with other tongues, they are now preachers and teachers of the Word, and all the adults and elder should heed them and their instruction?

Besides all this, no one even understands what people are saying when they prophesy under the auspices of Joel 2:28 and Acts 2:17, so the point is clear:

They are not preaching, or teaching. This is just another unjustified stretch.

I never once said that someone that is speaking in tongues is preaching. Now you are the one stretching what I said.

The definition means to foretell future events and to speak under inspiration, which is what we call an anointing or an anointed message.

Her role MAY account? All these things you are writing are couched in terms of supposition and possibility. That is, GUESSES. That's all you've got are guesses? Where's the sure word of prophecy? Where's if anyone speaks, let them speak as the oracles of God?

How can anyone think that just because Priscilla's name is written first that some major doctrine of the Bible is being revealed? Shall we then find all examples where one word or name is listed before another and make a teaching out of it? That's how rabbis derive their Talmudic mysteries, but that's not how Apostolics exegete the Word.



Just be real, here. You can't possibly believe 1 Timothy 2:11-12 means what it states.

Note the text carefully:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

How is a woman going to do this with a microphone in her hand as she sermonizes a room full of men?

But I suffer not a woman to teach,

This is an independent clause, meaning, it stands on its own without needing any additional information to be added. If Paul didn't go on to write anything else after this, it would stand true on its own merits. Meaning, independently of what comes after, Paul doesn't allow women to teach in the church, period. End of story.

nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

This is a dependent clause, that is, it depends on the independent clause that proceeds it. Meaning, this clause is not merely defined and understood on its own merits, but only in relation to the previous comments, that is, "I suffer not a woman to teach".

Now, notice this next part, because it is key:

See Paul's use of "nor"? It is in Greek from the word οὐδὲ, or oude. It is a compound of ou (meaning "not") and de (meaning moreover).

As such, it rightly reads "nor", not "or" in English. So then, what is the "moreover" that a woman is "not" to do? Moreover refers to the independent clause. Not only is a woman not to usurp authority over a man, but she is not even to teach. Why?

Because teaching is the purview of men only. For a woman, any woman, to teach the church is an automatic failure because it automatically usurps the authority given by God to men alone.

So you can't have a woman teaching and not usurping at the same time. A woman teaching and usurping is sine qua non with each other. Hence, the turn of a phrase I employed regarding ministerial man-pants is entirely justified here, even if you find it unpalatable.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/2-12.htm
See: https://biblehub.com/greek/3761.htm

And, again, when the Bible speaks in generalities, it doesn't mean that a woman doesn't have her role. If she is not usurping her husband's authority, then she is good.

I happen to be in a body that supports a woman's calling. I have never seen it cause disunity in the body. I am sure there have been problems, as I have seen problems with men in leadership, but that doesn't discount the issue of either having a calling to preach or teach.

No, it refers to the law of the synagogue, specifically to the law of the mechizah, as an outgrowth of the temple structure of women being separated from men, having their own court specific to them.

And as far as the sexual imagery goes, the phrase "thy desire shall be" is where the text is at. It's the same desire sin had toward Cain. And so, whenever a woman lusts in her heart to rule over and usurp a man and his God-given role, it's because sin has already lusted after her and conquered her, just like Cain. Therefore, God instituted that men shall forever rule over women. It protects women from the works of their flesh and the deceivableness of sin that is always present.

I gave you the NT scripture that references Genesis in the OT. Nothing to add to that. It couldn't be any plainer.

Touche.

Well, I don't see us having anything else to say on the subject. Thanks for the participation.

I will pray that God will open your eyes to the Oneness, because you only have two choices - Oneness or Trinitarianism. Since you are an Admin on an Apostolic forum, I hope you can figure that out.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thanks.

i mean thank God for the Truth not me ,... till now you avoid the Word but if you receive it finally , you must be thankful .

[peter83]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Peter from Greece!

You are doing a great job in this thread. Thank you for your contributions!

Thanks God for you.
i think i will use you to speak to Pressing-On through you this subject make her shake so i wait till she comes down.
Happy i see people speak the Truth . One Spirit,One faith!

[Esaias]

The irony of this thread is palpable.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

A few weeks ago, a friend sent me a text asking for my view about women keeping silent in the church.

I emailed him the following:
__________________________________________________ _______

34. 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.

The first thing to note is that in Greek, there are not two different words for either man and husband, or woman and wife. As it pertains here, "Let your women..." can just as easily, and perhaps more accurately, be translated as "Let your wives...". You can see this at the following link:

https://biblehub.com/greek/1135.htm

The context must be the determining factor, as since, in the very next verse, it speaks of asking husbands at home.

So, wives must "keep silence". Now, what does this mean? If you look at this link:

https://biblehub.com/greek/4601.htm

you can see a range of meanings, more than just being silent. It also means to "hold one's peace" and to be "kept secret".

I submit that holding one's peace is the right way to understand the passage. Holding one's peace means to not lose control over one's tongue, to know when to refrain from speaking, so that peaceful relations can be maintained (think James 3:8). Remember the context. In 1 Corinthians 14, right before this verse, Paul gave a pretty thorough summary of how certain gifts of the Holy Spirit should operate, particularly prophecy and diverse kinds of tongues with interpretation. The adjoining verses previous to 34 speak of the following:

1.) Allowing two to three prophets in the meeting speak.

2.) Letting others then judge what they have said.

3.) If something prophetic is revealed to someone else, the prophet who is speaking is to "hold his peace" so that the other person may interject their revelation. This holding of the prophet's peace is from the same Greek word as keeping silent in verse 34. So, even men, prophets no less, are enjoined to "keep silence", same as the women/wives of the church.

4.) Allowing all that are present an opportunity to prophesy one by one so that everyone may learn and be comforted. All that are present includes women, since 1 Corinthians 11:5 grants women the right to pray and prophesy in the church, provided they are properly "covered" or "veiled", as it were.

5.) The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, meaning even prophets or those prophesying can control themselves, hold their peace, choose when to speak, and when to refrain, not speak over someone, vie for attention, shout someone down, and etc.

6.) God is not the author of confusion, but of peace (that is, if properly obeyed, God can and will help everyone correctly hold their peace, and not lose control of themselves, men and women both, in every church everywhere).

It is into that context that Paul writes about women/wives holding their peace. When he writes stating they are not permitted to speak, it's in this sense. If a woman or wife is going to lose control of herself, endanger the peace, add confusion, or etc., by not being in submission/subjection to her husband, then she must, to put it bluntly, shut up. Particularly when a prophet is speaking, particularly when she doesn't understand what has been said by that prophet.

It doesn't mean she can't even say "hi" or "Praise the Lord" in worship, or pray when the saints pray. Rather, she can and should pray, and she can and should prophesy, as the Spirit allows, in the decency and order God ordains. Remember what prophesying is: it edifies, exhorts, and comforts. It doesn't teach or indoctrinate (1 Corinthians 14:3). If a woman/wife is going to attempt to do that, it must only be under her husband's permission, and only among other women and with children, lest 1 Timothy 2:11 be violated.

Going further, remember that Corinth began as a synagogue, among Jews. The law of the synagogue regarding the mechitzah requires that men and women be separated.

See here: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...the-synagogue/

It is likely this is what Paul meant when he referred to "law" in verse 34. There is no actual law in all of the Torah that states a woman or wife cannot speak, that is, that not talking during religious rituals is the means whereby a woman or wife proves she is under obedience to her husband.

So, imagine a scenario in which a wife, who is separated from her husband by a mechitzah, who is tending to the children, while a prophet is speaking to the church, suddenly interrupts to call over to her husband because she doesn't understand something and wants her husband to explain it to her.

That would be out of order. She needs to hold her peace and ask her husband at home. If a woman/wife has missed something important, likely because she was tending their children, or helping with the meal, or for any other reason, that would otherwise bless, edify, exhort, or comfort her, it is the husband's job, at home, to share what was said, what was missed, or not understood, and explain it to the woman/wife, and thus, she gets fed what the Spirit was saying through the prophet, just at a later time, that is, at home, away from the meeting.

It is not about interrapting the speach of somebody else.
It is about to dont speak atoll!
Ofcourse he does not mean that she shoyld not say "hi" etc. But is meant the public "speaking", the speech.
She can not "teach" or have authority over man.That verse too is not speaking about husband but general the man who is preaching:"Let the woman learn in silence"
learn what? learn the Word which is preaching..But I suffer not a woman to teach.
Anyway to the Corinthians now is NOT:
Speaking about a "sepecific" problem at Corinth or at "those times" which he dont make reference but "he let us imagine"! No!
The text speaks about the way "doing church" and woman are not to speak.
Speak means to stand up start speaking to the rest Church.
It does not mean she can not say "hi how are you" .
It is so emphatic that even if she want to learn something she has to ask latter!

***(law. I am not sure if Paul mean "like the law suggest" which law is referring.
There is the possibility (i think most that is more correct) that he meant the law of the Jews. Until today the Jews are disagree ,if women are alloyed to sing at the in the temple or not. 9liberals vs traditional)
The other possibility is ,to speak general about the society law which wanted the Woman in Greece to dont have any rights , neither was alloed to attend! public !even with their husband!
"Ekklisia" church was "the calling people out of their homes to public conversation" which women had absolute no right to attend ..and so to speak)
Anyway that not so important now.

33 as in all churches of the saints. Some Bibles astart verse 34 by this statement which seems logical to starting a sentence like that, rather than finish.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches:
All Women,general ,keep silence. "silence" is used by Paul when he spoke: about the Prophets (But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church and let him speak to himself, and to God. ) , If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace
Υou see?! Keeping silence when you speak in tongues it not means to dont speak atoll but to dont speak at public ,adressing people, just speak to yourself and God.
In that sense women are not to speak Public, to the others. Not that she can not say anything!
- for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
Not permitted to speak was to all cosaites , and to the Jews no woman could read and teach from the Torah! Only they listened!
- but to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Obedience to the Word, " Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection"
-35 [B]And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home[/B
Here we dont need explanation, he explains immediately! see:
for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Wow! It is a shame for a woman to speak? Yes it is a shame to stand up and preach/teach! Even if she has a question oever what is preached, she has to be silinte!
It is not a shame to say "goodbye" ,it is not a shame to speak her children and is it not meant that is a shame to "interrupt" the Preacher! If it was the point then why is not a shame for a man to interrupt preacher? Why only women interrupt and only women are not allowed to interrupt?
-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.
Yeap! Like the "head covering" subject ,here also is NOT a cultural thing. was not a "specific situation at Corinth" ,was not just a episode happened at Corinthians ,but is a Commandment of the Lord like all the previous themes.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Amen!

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Preach “at”? It looks like it is more a personal problem/opinion for you when you purposely use the word “at” instead of “to”.

So, only a man can preach “to” people, but a woman preaches “at”?

Okay... Lol!