Should women remain silent in the churches?

[Dawnofhope]

Should women remain silent in the churches? I hope it wouldn’t be a question taken too seriously these days. However St Paul in his first epistle to a church in Corinth appeared to advise just that.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If 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
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Should we take Paul’s words at face value or did he mean something else? What do the Christian scriptures teach about the equality of men and women? How did the early churches treat women? How much has changed and why?

 

[sun rise]

The sexist past is the past. One of my female friends is a Christian pastor and more power to her and all the other women who lead congregations.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The sexist past is the past. One of my female friends is a Christian pastor and more power to her and all the other women who lead congregations.

The Christian Church in many places has made the adjustment to the modern world. That is beautiful to see.

 

[Heyo]

Should we take Paul’s words at face value or did he mean something else?

I think it's pretty clear that Paul was misogynist and meant what he wrote.

What do the Christian scriptures teach about the equality of men and women?

As always, everything and it's opposite.

How did the early churches treat women?

Pretty much the same as the society they lived in, which was more or less patriarchic around the known world. There were exception though. A woman who could kick a man's butt, in any discipline, was accepted. Like Hypatia of Alexandria who was revered by Pagans and Christians. (Until they lynched her).

How much has changed and why?

Much has changed (in jurisprudence) and much has stayed the same (in the heads of too many men).
The turning point was the idea of the (early) Enlightenment, that there should be no special people before the law. While the idea was concerned only with men of royal and common status, women picked it up and showed men that they were people, too.

 

[Heyo]

The Christian Church in many places has made the adjustment to the modern world. That is beautiful to see.

While Islam has a looong way to go, the first step is made: Seyran Ates is Iman of the Ibn Rushd-Goethe-Moschee in Berlin.

 

[epronovost]

Should we take Paul’s words at face value or did he mean something else?

It's pretty much what it said on the tin though tradition allows women to teach and preach to children.

What do the Christian scriptures teach about the equality of men and women?

That women are inferior to men and owe them obediance in the same fashion men owe obediance to God. Though men must treat them kindly and generously as long as they obey. Their first duty is to produce children and raise them all the while avoiding like plague the marks and trapping of power, prestige and authority.

How did the early churches treat women? How much has changed and why?

The very early Christians of the first century were believed to be a bit more liberal toward women due to the fact that some of them would have been close to Jesus himself and thus important for the propagation of Christianity. Some of them were executed for their faith in the late 3rd century AD. As Christianity grew, men became the sole power to shape Christian theology. The fact that Christianity was born from a profondly misogynistic society and flourished in precedently just as misogynistic societies (the Greek and Roman societies) ensured that it wold remain a foundation of the culture of the time and area.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Muslim feminist plans to open liberal mosque in Britain
"The Berlin mosque took eight years to establish, “but I think now things will go faster,” said Ateş. She is planning to open a second liberal mosque in Freiburg by the end of the year, and is working closely with other progressive Muslims, including Ani Zonneveld, a female imam based in Los Angeles, Shirin Khankan, a Danish woman and imam who opened a female-led mosque in Copenhagen last year, Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed, an Algerian-born gay imam based in Marseille, and Elham Manea, an expert in sharia law based in Zurich."

 

[Altfish]

Should women remain silent in the churches?

Is it any wonder non-belief is growing when questions like this are being asked?
It is almost 2020 - keep up

 

[Brickjectivity]

Should women remain silent in the churches? I hope it wouldn’t be a question taken too seriously these days. However St Paul in his first epistle to a church in Corinth appeared to advice just that.

The NIV reads differently. Instead of "for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church" the NIV reads "as the law says." What law? The term 'Church' is actually better translated 'Government'. Jesus founds a government, not a preaching festival with a choir. This is originally what church means, too. My question becomes either "Why is it disgraceful?" or "Which law?" He doesn't explain the disgrace, and he doesn't specify what law. There is a lot of confusion surrounding things Paul writes about women. Look at the bit about head coverings.

First, its rare or impossible to find someone who can explain Paul's comments about head coverings. This is found in 1 Corinthians 11. I won't say that nobody knows what it means, but there certainly are a lot of interpretations and people who don't grasp the arguments. Some churches have the women cover their heads with little hats even though they don't know why. For instance he says "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" What? What is he talking about? How would I judge that for myself if I cannot understand what he is talking about in the first place....and look at this one: "It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels." Huh? I've been in this a long time, and I've never met anyone who could explain these passages from 1 Corinthians. They can enforce them, but they can't explain them.

Titus 2:2 says that old men should teach young men and old women should teach young women, but that isn't how churches operate today. The fathers don't teach the children, either. Instead the children are taught through Sunday schools.

Should we take Paul’s words at face value or did he mean something else? What do the Christian scriptures teach about the equality of men and women? How did the early churches treat women? How much has changed and why?

Perhaps if we were able to recreate the same environment and conditions we could be sure of his meaning, but that doesn't seem possible. The meaning of 'Church' has drifted.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The NIV reads differently. Instead of "for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church" the NIV reads "as the law says." What law? The term 'Church' is actually better translated 'Government'. Jesus founds a government, not a preaching festival with a choir. This is originally what church means, too. My question becomes either "Why is it disgraceful?" or "Which law?" He doesn't explain the disgrace, and he doesn't specify what law. There is a lot of confusion surrounding things Paul writes about women. Look at the bit about head coverings.

First, its rare or impossible to find someone who can explain Paul's comments about head coverings. This is found in 1 Corinthians 11. I won't say that nobody knows what it means, but there certainly are a lot of interpretations and people who don't grasp the arguments. Some churches have the women cover their heads with little hats even though they don't know why. For instance he says "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" What? What is he talking about? How would I judge that for myself if I cannot understand what he is talking about in the first place....and look at this one: "It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels." Huh? I've been in this a long time, and I've never met anyone who could explain these passages from 1 Corinthians. They can enforce them, but they can't explain them.

Titus 2:2 says that old men should teach young men and old women should teach young women, but that isn't how churches operate today. The fathers don't teach the children, either. Instead the children are taught through Sunday schools.


Perhaps if we were able to recreate the same environment and conditions we could be sure of his meaning, but that doesn't seem possible. The meaning of 'Church' has drifted.

On the one hand
all believer (men and women) are priests to God
all believers (men and women) have rights as 'sons of God' even the daughter
in Christ there is (in a sense) neither jew nor greek, slave nor free, male nor female
in Christ all believers (male and female) are loved as the son
women may assist elders and deacons and in the earliest baptist traditions there are women deacons

On the other hand
believers have different roles, not better or worse
some leadership is Biblically normatively male, pastors and elders
if a woman is acting in a manner subject to godly elders I think she may talk to the congregation on many topics, teach with her husband, teach younger women, teach young adults, teens and children but if it comes to some issues of teaching doctrine authoritatively or exercising authority over a man I think may be not biblical normatively.

In unusual circumstances, where there may be no male leadership, for a time.
Frankly it's a mistake to say giving the sermon or being on an elder board or deacon board makes one greater than a woman who is in a women's ministry or prayer ministry or helps or VBS ministry or some other thing..

To an extent the issue is addressed in this talk 'Father, you have loved them even as you loved me' applies to both men and women

 

[ChristineM]

New Should women remain silent in the churches?

No.

Subjugated women of 2000 or 1000 years ago had no choice, keep quiet or be beaten. Those days are over

 

[crossfire]

The NIV reads differently. Instead of "for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church" the NIV reads "as the law says." What law? The term 'Church' is actually better translated 'Government'. Jesus founds a government, not a preaching festival with a choir. This is originally what church means, too. My question becomes either "Why is it disgraceful?" or "Which law?" He doesn't explain the disgrace, and he doesn't specify what law. There is a lot of confusion surrounding things Paul writes about women. Look at the bit about head coverings.

First, its rare or impossible to find someone who can explain Paul's comments about head coverings. This is found in 1 Corinthians 11. I won't say that nobody knows what it means, but there certainly are a lot of interpretations and people who don't grasp the arguments. Some churches have the women cover their heads with little hats even though they don't know why. For instance he says "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" What? What is he talking about? How would I judge that for myself if I cannot understand what he is talking about in the first place....and look at this one: "It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels." Huh? I've been in this a long time, and I've never met anyone who could explain these passages from 1 Corinthians. They can enforce them, but they can't explain them.

Titus 2:2 says that old men should teach young men and old women should teach young women, but that isn't how churches operate today. The fathers don't teach the children, either. Instead the children are taught through Sunday schools.


Perhaps if we were able to recreate the same environment and conditions we could be sure of his meaning, but that doesn't seem possible. The meaning of 'Church' has drifted.

1 Corinthians 11:4-6

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. 6 So if a woman’s head is not covered, her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered.​

Captured concubines had their heads shaved, and was considered a sign of humiliation:
Deuteronomy 21:10

10 “When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take some of them prisoner, and 11 if you see a beautiful woman among the captives, desire her, and want to take her as your wife, 12 you are to bring her into your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails, 13 remove the clothes she was wearing when she was taken prisoner, live in your house, and mourn for her father and mother a full month. After that, you may have sexual relations with her and be her husband, and she will be your wife. 14 Then if you are not satisfied with her, you are to let her go where she wants, but you must not sell her for money or treat her as merchandise, because you have humiliated her.​

Regarding women having their heads covered because of the angels: See Genesis 6: where the angels came to have relations with human women: these women were "captured concubines" of the angels:

6 When mankind began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful, and they took any they chose as wives for themselves. 3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit will not remain with mankind forever, because they are corrupt. Their days will be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth both in those days and afterward, when the sons of God came to the daughters of mankind, who bore children to them. They were the powerful men of old, the famous men.​

So women who prophesy might be considered captured concubines of angels. Apparently, Paul didn't want any more Nephilim, and the violence (jealousy?) that came with them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

1 Corinthians 11:4-6

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. 6 So if a woman’s head is not covered, her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered.​

Captured concubines had their heads shaved, and was considered a sign of humiliation:
Deuteronomy 21:10

10 “When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take some of them prisoner, and 11 if you see a beautiful woman among the captives, desire her, and want to take her as your wife, 12 you are to bring her into your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails, 13 remove the clothes she was wearing when she was taken prisoner, live in your house, and mourn for her father and mother a full month. After that, you may have sexual relations with her and be her husband, and she will be your wife. 14 Then if you are not satisfied with her, you are to let her go where she wants, but you must not sell her for money or treat her as merchandise, because you have humiliated her.​

Regarding women having their heads covered because of the angels: See Genesis 6: where the angels came to have relations with human women: these women were "captured concubines" of the angels:

6 When mankind began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful, and they took any they chose as wives for themselves. 3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit will not remain with mankind forever, because they are corrupt. Their days will be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth both in those days and afterward, when the sons of God came to the daughters of mankind, who bore children to them. They were the powerful men of old, the famous men.​

So women who prophesy might be considered captured concubines of angels. Apparently, Paul didn't want any more Nephilim, and the violence (jealousy?) that came with them.

That is interesting, however it raises more questions.

First I must ask about his comments about men covering our heads. Why would he say that a man dishonors his head by praying when it is covered? That is what Jewish men do, so he saying they purposely dishonor their heads. They never pray without their heads covered. We need understand why they dishonor their heads and why Jewish men cover their heads, but few if any know the answer. It is part of the larger mystery of the kippah which I was recently discussing with someone else. The reasons for the kippah are considered advanced material ('Kabbalistic' is the term used). Is Paul suggesting the man must dishonor his head but not the woman? Are we wrong about what the men should do in the church, and is the Jewish tradition reversed for Christian men in Paul's time?

The questions surrounding women's head coverings have become like several up/down light switches all madly wired into one light. We are guessing which arrangement of switches turns the light on. We want to know if women should cover their heads and why, but it goes back to why Jewish men wear kippahs, doesn't it?

Also, your conclusions don't align with my current model of understanding. If you feel you have the willingness then read on.

You have brought up the captive women whose heads are shaved, but that raises other questions. Shaving isn't necessarily the humiliation to which the law refers. They have been captured in war, and isn't that humiliating on its own? Shaving their heads seems like a mere trifle compared to that, and for all I know the shaving is for their benefit. The law says their heads are shaved to show that they are in mourning. If they are in mourning then nobody can touch, so maybe its a protection for them rather than a humiliation. The law does say they are humiliated, yes; but it may not be the shaving which is the source of their humiliation. There are other reasons people shave their heads. There is a law about Nazarites, and when they complete their vows they must shave their heads, too; but the law does not say they have been humiliated by this procedure. I cannot conclude that this answers questions about head coverings for women in churches, because there remain too many questions.

"Because of the angels" also may not refer to the Genesis story about Nephilim. The term 'Angel' here is translated from a Greek term which also translates to 'Messenger' and to 'Evangelist' in English. Contrariwise the story in Genesis uses a Hebrew term translated 'Gods' and sometimes in other ways: 'Judges', 'Masters', 'Kings' and 'Angels'. Which is it? I posit that Genesis is talking about meddling gods or possibly kings, not fallen angels. Meddlesome gods make several appearances in Genesis. The 'fallen angels' mentioned by some NT verses I consider to be the Jews who forsook the Torah and were forced into captivity as a result, and I do not equate them with those meddlesome gods. The phrase "Because of the angels" does not self align with the story of the Nephilim. Its a possibility that he alludes to this but seems unlikely to me right now.

 

[101G]

Should women remain silent in the churches? I hope it wouldn’t be a question taken too seriously these days. However St Paul in his first epistle to a church in Corinth appeared to advice just that.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If 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
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Should we take Paul’s words at face value or did he mean something else? What do the Christian scriptures teach about the equality of men and women? How did the early churches treat women? How much has changed and why?

GINOLJC, to all. addressing the OP only, 1 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.".
#1. the apostle was not addressing any woman, or women in the church, he was addressing husbands who had wives that spoke without knowledge nor with the wisdom of God. while speaking in the church

#2. the term "woman" in verse 34 is a "wife", G1135 γυνή gune (ǰ ï-nee') n.
1. a woman.
2. (specially) a wife.
[probably from the base of G1096]
KJV: wife, woman
Root(s): G1096

notice definition #2, so how do we know that this is a "wife" spoken of in verse 34? answer, because when they were to get home they should learn from from their HUSBANDS while at home. the only type of woman who have a "husband" is a married one. 1 Corinthians 14:35 "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." THE SHAME IS A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOD'S HOLY WORD.
this is why the apostle said what he said in 1 Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." why IN "Silence", so she may LEARN. here "MAN" in this verse is "husband" and the term "woman" is the same as in 1 Corinthians 14:34, wife. this is a home setting of educating one's wife in the word of God, how do we know this? because of verse 15. 1 Timothy 2:15 "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
well, the only "MAN" and the only "WOMAN" who suppose to be having children are one's who are MARRIED .... (that's to each other... (smile). so we can clearly see, or kill two birds with one stone, that it is the husband responsibility, (AT HOME), who is first, as Adam was formed first, it is the one who have the responsibility to teach "HIS" own wife at home, the things of God before they, (him and her) come to the church with two different assessment of the same topic of scripture. that CONFUSION, and God is not the author of Confusion. that's why a deacon wife must be the same as her husband, on one accord.

so we can see clearly that the apostle was speaking to hubands of wives and not in general to all women in the church, for if the apostle would have used the term G2338 θήλυς thelus (thee'-lïs) adj.
female.
[from thele (the nipple)]
KJV: female, woman

then we all could pack up our bags and go home, for that would have included all and every woman in the church. but since he did not, (thank God), it was directed at wives who had "dumb" husband who haven't taught their wife anything concering the word of God, .... at home first. so these verses are directed at husband who have wives that speak and teach in the church. and so it's the "HUSBAND" responsibility to TEACH his wife the things of God and how to conduct herself in a church setting. for the husband and the wife are ONE, and they should say the "SAME" thing, else comes confusion which God is not of.

hoped this helped.

PICJAG.

 

[crossfire]

That is interesting, however it raises more questions.

First I must ask about his comments about men covering our heads. Why would he say that a man dishonors his head by praying when it is covered? That is what Jewish men do, so he saying they purposely dishonor their heads. They never pray without their heads covered. We need understand why they dishonor their heads and why Jewish men cover their heads, but few if any know the answer.

My guess is that it would represent freedom of conscience. (That would be my best guess.) See 1 Peter 3, especially verse 16.

 

[Brickjectivity]

My guess is that it would represent freedom of conscience. (That would be my best guess.) See 1 Peter 3, especially verse 16.

Thanks for that. For your entertainment consider this question:

In Genesis chapter 1, Adam and Eve are made in the image of gods (translation of your choice); but only in Genesis 3:26 do they seize the ability to become like gods obtaining freedom of conscience. Before they do it they are naked without shame. Afterward they must wear clothing. At this moment where the conscience appears first in Eve, second in Adam (yes Eve had a conscience first apparently by accident), at this moment of the creation of their godlike powers when they were truly created as spiritual beings instead of mere automatons, at this moment did Adam dishonor himself when he prayed without a Kippah?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Should women be silent in church? Better to start at home if ya ask me!

 

[Dawnofhope]

The NIV reads differently. Instead of "for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church" the NIV reads "as the law says." What law? The term 'Church' is actually better translated 'Government'. Jesus founds a government, not a preaching festival with a choir. This is originally what church means, too. My question becomes either "Why is it disgraceful?" or "Which law?" He doesn't explain the disgrace, and he doesn't specify what law. There is a lot of confusion surrounding things Paul writes about women. Look at the bit about head coverings.

First, its rare or impossible to find someone who can explain Paul's comments about head coverings. This is found in 1 Corinthians 11. I won't say that nobody knows what it means, but there certainly are a lot of interpretations and people who don't grasp the arguments. Some churches have the women cover their heads with little hats even though they don't know why. For instance he says "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" What? What is he talking about? How would I judge that for myself if I cannot understand what he is talking about in the first place....and look at this one: "It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels." Huh? I've been in this a long time, and I've never met anyone who could explain these passages from 1 Corinthians. They can enforce them, but they can't explain them.

Titus 2:2 says that old men should teach young men and old women should teach young women, but that isn't how churches operate today. The fathers don't teach the children, either. Instead the children are taught through Sunday schools.


Perhaps if we were able to recreate the same environment and conditions we could be sure of his meaning, but that doesn't seem possible. The meaning of 'Church' has drifted.

Thank you for your considered response.

I would consider the law Paul alludes is law given to Moses by Yahweh. Woman are not accorded the same rights and privileges as men in public life and were subjugated to men. The reality of Roman society was unlikely to suggested this was the time to change. There is little in the New Testament that advocates for the type of equality between men and women that exists today. For that reason it wasn’t until relatively recently democratic institutions were more universally established along with the rights of women to vote and participate in government. This is not a criticism of Christianity or Paul. Two thousand years ago was simply not the right time in history for such change to take place.

Head coverings are present in Islam for reasons of chastity and modesty. I suspect the same concern was shared by Paul.

The role and status of women including within the church has shifted profoundly since the nineteenth century. Perhaps a landmark event was WW1 where women needed to work as so many men went to war. After the war, many were not content to go back to the way things were. Verses such as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 would have been used to reinforce the status quo. However the era such admonitions belonged has long passed.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thank you for your considered response.

Sure, and you seem to have interesting topics.

I would consider the law Paul alludes is law given to Moses by Yahweh. Woman are not accorded the same rights and privileges as men in public life and were subjugated to men.

You make a strong case. There are several aspects which cause men to remain the leaders in governance. The men are ordered to judge and to judge fairly. Since women aren't commanded to judge it means all judgment is to be exercised by men. Women can inherit but default inheritance goes to the firstborn sons. Men are required to marry. Men and women are required to together reproduce Jewishly educated children by all reasonable means. Women may not enter contracts without the approval of a male, except in certain circumstances. Such a contract can be revoked after the fact if it is revealed that she should have gotten permission but did not.

Head coverings are present in Islam for reasons of chastity and modesty. I suspect the same concern was shared by Paul.

Maybe so, but he talks about it with all kinds of spooky language. "Adam was made first so its just obvious, right?" He's not making an argument that is intended for us here today. If he showed up here in 2019 he'd be completely lost, and we are the same way trying to read his letters.

The role and status of women including within the church has shifted profoundly since the nineteenth century. Perhaps a landmark event was WW1 where women needed to work as so many men went to war. After the war, many were not content to go back to the way things were. Verses such as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 would have been used to reinforce the status quo. However the era such admonitions belonged has long passed.

Now that I think about it, I realize you understate it. Things have changed so quickly that men are all confused about how we should behave.

 

[epronovost]

Things have changed so quickly that men are all confused about how we should behave.

Speak for yourself, it's actually incredibly easy to know how you should behave around women: be respectful.