I noticed this same correlation myself.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Meat Can women pray or prophesy in the Assembly?
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
@The Revolting Man - Your distrust of the Christian academy is not unwarranted. Frequently academics let their assumptions color not only their conclusions but also their translations. With that said, if I didn't learn Greek I wouldn't be able to check translations. . . and I had to learn Greek from someone else. They were not perfect nor are the resources infallible, but they can help.
In the First Corinthians passage (14:34 in particular) it says exactly what it seems to say. Women aren't permitted to speak. The disagreement from Frederick and others comes in the use of the particle that follows ("allah"). TRM reads the particle (not incorrectly) as something emphatic "Indeed, they should be under submission." Frederick and others are reading that seem particle (not incorrectly) as a contrast to the strong negative in the first part: "Yet they should be under submission . . ." Meaning (I think) that "Women should not speak unless they are instructed to do so by the authority."
This Greek conjunction can be meaningfully translated in either of those two directions. Context and the leading of the Holy Spirit need to inform what is intended (and I, frankly, do not know). One thing that I think would help is knowing what portion of Torah Paul is referring to when he says: "as the Law also says . . . "
Is Paul referring to Gen 2&3 since he talks about Adam and Eve in other contexts?
In the First Corinthians passage (14:34 in particular) it says exactly what it seems to say. Women aren't permitted to speak. The disagreement from Frederick and others comes in the use of the particle that follows ("allah"). TRM reads the particle (not incorrectly) as something emphatic "Indeed, they should be under submission." Frederick and others are reading that seem particle (not incorrectly) as a contrast to the strong negative in the first part: "Yet they should be under submission . . ." Meaning (I think) that "Women should not speak unless they are instructed to do so by the authority."
This Greek conjunction can be meaningfully translated in either of those two directions. Context and the leading of the Holy Spirit need to inform what is intended (and I, frankly, do not know). One thing that I think would help is knowing what portion of Torah Paul is referring to when he says: "as the Law also says . . . "
Is Paul referring to Gen 2&3 since he talks about Adam and Eve in other contexts?
I am not in disagreement with a woman being under authority and in order. You have not quoted a Law that says a woman cant speak in the assembly.Maybe in the book of Jasher, Enoch, or others, but there isEsther 1:20-22, Genesis 3:16, Numbers 30:3-13
Im not disagreeing but singing is classified as speaking is it not? I am advocating for an orderly Assembly.
The claim is that the woman cannot utter a sound, you have contradicted yourself by agreeing with Zec. You agree that a woman can utter a sound until the teaching starts.
You are correct in does not say that 11 were told, but a plurality. It is said that 11 head to Galilee. What do you say the assembly is? How many are necessary?
Was Sapphira not killed in an assembly? The whole assembly feared? Is that out of context?
The temple does not make it an assembly, however people can assemble there. I see that she spoke of Him to all looking for redemption. I'm not holding this as concrete evidence that she spoke with people assembled.
Luke 2 KJV
38And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
The question I ask of you is:
If two verses are the context of your doctrine, are you in context of the scripture. If these two verses were missing can you support what you believe?
I do not deny that believers can be in proximity and not be assembled.
Answer me this. You have stated the the assembly is people gathering for corporate worship and teaching. I have personally been at an assembly with you while doing this. Does my memory deceive me or did I see your wife singing (speaking) in the assembly?
If she was then you either don't believe this passage to be true or you believe it to be true and don't practice it. You have also stated that if a woman is allowed to speak in the assembly then Paul isn't scripture, by your own actions are you denying Paul as scripture?
Are you teaching something you don't believe or are you just being a hypocrite?
If your woman did not sing (speak) then please correct me.
You've got to be joking! Unbelievable.... absolutely UN.BE.LIEV.A.BLE!! Did she say, Amen at the end of prayers?
To my current understanding singing isn’t covered in these verses. I have no problem with women singing in the assembly.
No. Nuance is not contradiction. It’s nuance. You’ve drifting into animosity towards the man (me) and not the ideas. Accusations of hypocrisy are scorched earth tactics that are only rarely warranted.
So as long as she sings a prophecy its good?
I assure you that I don't have animosity towards you. Just seeing if you are willing to apply your view consistently.
Accusing someone of hypocrisy is the definition of animus.So as long as she sings a prophecy its good?
I assure you that I don't have animosity towards you. Just seeing if you are willing to apply your view consistently.
The singing prophecy is a clever little gotcha, well done. But singing isn’t speaking so we’d have to look into it. That’s the practical application though and we’re still talking about the theoretical truth of the verses.Or at least I am. You seem to want to talk about anything else.
Alright so theoretical truth of the verse is that a woman speaking is absolutely not accepted in the assembly unless it's melodic.
Do you have any way at all to support your interpretation of verses 34-45? You say that an instruction to be silent and that they’re permitted to speak. Can you support that idea at all?
So far you pulled out several examples of women speaking but didn’t show that they were speaking in the assembly. Do you have anything to support your idea?
This is probably stupid but, this is how I think of it.
The Assembly needs to function decently and in order, I compare it to a board meeting. The board members could meet outside of a meeting, and that isn't a board meeting, it's just the board members.
Whenever a Board meeting starts, anyone who is there who is not a voting member (leadership, women definitely cannot be in leadership) needs to be invited to stay. When they are invited to stay the board decides whether they get Voice, Vote, or neither.
The egalitarian stance is that women get Voice and Vote (in fact, the egalitarian stance says they're in leadership too). The complimentarian says the only get Voice, they get to express opinions but have no voting power.
The Biblical truth is they get neither. They are to remain silent. And so like in a board meeting, they are present, but they don't voice opinions, make judgements, or ask questions.
I know this was convoluted, but my basic answer is: No. A woman should not pray or prophesy in the Assembly.
I don't know how singing should be regarded, I would want to know how the Tabernacle of David functioned in that regard, I'm not certain women were part of the levitical musician groups who played music, or if they took part in corporate songs or dances.
The Assembly needs to function decently and in order, I compare it to a board meeting. The board members could meet outside of a meeting, and that isn't a board meeting, it's just the board members.
Whenever a Board meeting starts, anyone who is there who is not a voting member (leadership, women definitely cannot be in leadership) needs to be invited to stay. When they are invited to stay the board decides whether they get Voice, Vote, or neither.
The egalitarian stance is that women get Voice and Vote (in fact, the egalitarian stance says they're in leadership too). The complimentarian says the only get Voice, they get to express opinions but have no voting power.
The Biblical truth is they get neither. They are to remain silent. And so like in a board meeting, they are present, but they don't voice opinions, make judgements, or ask questions.
I know this was convoluted, but my basic answer is: No. A woman should not pray or prophesy in the Assembly.
I don't know how singing should be regarded, I would want to know how the Tabernacle of David functioned in that regard, I'm not certain women were part of the levitical musician groups who played music, or if they took part in corporate songs or dances.
When I take the scripture as a whole the concept of a woman uttering a word in the Assembly doesn't come up except in this passage. The law that you have yet to find doesn't exist and the law I believe it to be talking about is that a woman should be subject, as the law says. You have shared that even you don't take this verse to mean that a woman cant utter a word in the assembly. You have stated that there is an exception. I also agree that there are exceptions. Once again where there is no law there is no transgression. If someone states that their is a transgression they bare the burden of proof. If I accidentally smudged the ink on your bible as it was being translated and verse 34 and 35 became unreadable, then the concept you are defending ceases to exist. The whole of scripture teaches that a woman is to be subject
as the law says. No where have I found any other passage that says this same thing, and I don't think that our Father waited 4,000 years to tell His people a new concept.
I love scholars lol
They can't figure out the assembly either!
In A they gather on purpose and in C they gather by chance!
Not only by chance, but tumultuously even!
Obviously this is an assembly, judging by the tumult
I can agree that this is part of the assembly and a function of it. I also see breaking bread and drinking wine and enjoying fellowship as the assembly too, and of course done orderly. I think a lot of people forget that we are a family too.
Where does the Law say this? You’re giving yourself a pass that you’re trying to deny me. You haven’t shown this in the Law yet.
No you don’t. You don’t believe it exists at all. You think “be silent you’re not permitted to speak” means that it’s fine to speak. Why did God use words He didn’t mean?
These verses are the “Law”. It’s right there. Explicitly written, which is one whole more time than your claim that a woman must be covered is written out. The only way you can claim that it’s nowhere in the Bible is if you cut out verses 34-35. You don’t get to do that. If you have false verses in the Bible then you have a false Bible.
That applies to any numbers of concepts. And how many times does God have to speak before you listen? Is once not enough? Do you think He’s indecisive?
Where does the Law say this? You have not shown it yet.
That’s utter insanity James. He waited 4,000 years to give us the whole New Testament. Where is the Second Coming, Baptism and a whole host of other concepts in the Old Testament? You’re not thinking.
Last edited:
The whole of the Law teaches that a woman shouldn’t speak in the assembly. All offices are reserved to men. There are no examples of women speaking in the assembly. The priesthood is all men and the women of the tribe of Levi were not given any official capacity in worship or the temple.
So you see the Law teaches that women should be silent in the assembly. Now what are you going to say? Oh I know, “Be silent, you’re not permitted to speak” is clearly about headship.
Because why? The whole Law says so. This conversation reminds me of something.
So the upshot of it all is that you have no reason why “Be silent, it’s not permitted for you to speak” means anything other than that. You simply do not want it to. Okay that’s fine.
But if you’re being honest then you have to admit that a simple man, approaching the verses with no preconceived notions would assume that women can’t speak in the assembly. He might not know precisely what speaking and the assembly entails but he could safely assume that women shouldn’t be mixing the two.
You can at least admit that right? You can admit that a reasonable man can read 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and his first thought would be that women should speak in the assembly? I mean it’s not a crazy interpretation given the verbiage right?
I think a closer look at that word "speak" might help to show the similarities and differences between people's positions here. Thayer's lexicon clearly states it has several different meanings, as summarised by @Edward. When you read the detailed lexicon entry, you find that the word is so broadly defined that classical writings even use it to refer to animal noises (although in scripture it is only used for human speech).
@The Revolting Man, by stating that speech is forbidden but singing is not, is essentially proposing that in this specific context the correct definition is 3: "to talk" - forbidding women from teaching, public prayer and scripture readings, but permitting them to sing.
@James Pease appears to be proposing that the correct definition is 1: "to utter a voice or emit a sound" (by claiming that anyone who thinks women singing is ok is being hypocritical, as the plain reading forbids singing). But then, because the implications of that appear too impractically extreme, claims that the statement is not a command as it's not in Torah, so they're actually not forbidden from anything provided their husband says it's ok.
When you look at it that way, the major difference is simply which definition each person is picking from the list of options. And there is very little practical difference between the positions taken by @frederick and @The Revolting Man (only whether women can do scripture readings in church, a very minor detail given both would be happy for them to sing a psalm), but a major difference between them and @James Pease.
So my question for @frederick, @The Revolting Man and @James Pease is simply "what contextual reason is there to believe that the word, in that specific sentence, has the specific meaning you have chosen from the list of options?"
@frederick has proposed that, in this specific context, the correct definition is 5: "to use words in order to declare one’s mind and disclose one’s thoughts". This would forbid women from teaching and possibly public prayer (both of which disclose the woman's own thoughts), but allow them to do scripture readings and sing (which are reciting the words of others).
@The Revolting Man, by stating that speech is forbidden but singing is not, is essentially proposing that in this specific context the correct definition is 3: "to talk" - forbidding women from teaching, public prayer and scripture readings, but permitting them to sing.
@James Pease appears to be proposing that the correct definition is 1: "to utter a voice or emit a sound" (by claiming that anyone who thinks women singing is ok is being hypocritical, as the plain reading forbids singing). But then, because the implications of that appear too impractically extreme, claims that the statement is not a command as it's not in Torah, so they're actually not forbidden from anything provided their husband says it's ok.
When you look at it that way, the major difference is simply which definition each person is picking from the list of options. And there is very little practical difference between the positions taken by @frederick and @The Revolting Man (only whether women can do scripture readings in church, a very minor detail given both would be happy for them to sing a psalm), but a major difference between them and @James Pease.
So my question for @frederick, @The Revolting Man and @James Pease is simply "what contextual reason is there to believe that the word, in that specific sentence, has the specific meaning you have chosen from the list of options?"
Last edited:
I think the question of singing is fundamental to everyone's understanding of this verse. Everyone considers it self-evident that:
1: Women's speech is restricted in some way (otherwise the verse wouldn't exist), but
2: Women must be permitted to sing (because that's our culture...), and to say little things like "be quiet Johnny, no you can't have an apple" (because lots of them are mothers).
So everyone interprets this in order to find a way to permit some speech, especially singing.
@The Revolting Man and @frederick permit singing by interpreting the word "speak" in a limited way that does not include singing.
@James Pease permits singing by claiming the instruction is not actually a command, or does not apply at all - he ignores it.
But in both cases the intent is the same - the means just differ.
I'm not saying this is wrong - those two assumptions make complete sense, and I agree that the verse must be interpreted in a way that agrees with them. And I personally agree with @The Revolting Man and @frederick that this should be done by recognising a limited definition of "speak". Still, I think it is important to be explicitly aware of our assumptions, as they help us to understand how we have reached our conclusions, and also help us to understand why others have reached the conclusions they have.
1: Women's speech is restricted in some way (otherwise the verse wouldn't exist), but
2: Women must be permitted to sing (because that's our culture...), and to say little things like "be quiet Johnny, no you can't have an apple" (because lots of them are mothers).
So everyone interprets this in order to find a way to permit some speech, especially singing.
@The Revolting Man and @frederick permit singing by interpreting the word "speak" in a limited way that does not include singing.
@James Pease permits singing by claiming the instruction is not actually a command, or does not apply at all - he ignores it.
But in both cases the intent is the same - the means just differ.
I'm not saying this is wrong - those two assumptions make complete sense, and I agree that the verse must be interpreted in a way that agrees with them. And I personally agree with @The Revolting Man and @frederick that this should be done by recognising a limited definition of "speak". Still, I think it is important to be explicitly aware of our assumptions, as they help us to understand how we have reached our conclusions, and also help us to understand why others have reached the conclusions they have.