Women should be silent in church?

"As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."

-- 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, NWT


So... why isn't this injunction by Paul followed? As much as I believe in modesty for a woman, and I get enough of that at the Hare Krishna temple and trying to be a good devotee, it's hard for me to swallow this idea that a woman can not preach or be a preacher of some sort.

So why does Paul give this injunction? What could have been the cultural context of the situation, and why is it that women are now ignoring one of such Pauline statements in order to modernise Christian teachings, especially when many claim to believe in the Bible 'alone'?

I have attended many churches and a few Christian meetings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and women are given a chance to give opinion or read passages of Scripture, when this injunction is clearly laid for Christian sisters.

Gaura Priya said:

"As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."

-- 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, NWT


So... why isn't this injunction by Paul followed? As much as I believe in modesty for a woman, and I get enough of that at the Hare Krishna temple and trying to be a good devotee, it's hard for me to swallow this idea that a woman can not preach or be a preacher of some sort.

So why does Paul give this injunction? What could have been the cultural context of the situation, and why is it that women are now ignoring one of such Pauline statements in order to modernise Christian teachings, especially when many claim to believe in the Bible 'alone'?

I have attended many churches and a few Christian meetings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and women are given a chance to give opinion or read passages of Scripture, when this injunction is clearly laid for Christian sisters.

Click to expand...

Hi Gaura,

the context of this passage is relating to how meetings should be conducted in a congregation. Paul’s instruction to “keep silent” occurs three times in 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Each time, it is addressed, not only to women but to men also.
First, Paul said: “If someone speaks in a tongue, let it be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns; and let someone translate. But if there be no translator, let him keep silent in the congregation and speak to himself and to God.” (1 Corinthians 14:27, 28) That did not mean that such a person was never to speak at meetings but that there were times when he should be silent.

he said the same about prophets...: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern the meaning. But if there is a revelation to another one while sitting there, let the first one keep silent.” This meant, not that the first prophet was to refrain from speaking at meetings, but that he had to be silent at times

So we take his words with a similar purpose except with the added difference that women were not to be teachers in the congregation. Paul showed that it would be improper for a woman to assume the role of teacher because Christ has assigned that role specifically to men: “I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.”—1 Timothy 2:12.
In considering the role of women in Gods congregation, we refrain from trying to assume the role of a male by instructing the congregation. We dont challenge the authority of those who are taking the lead and directing the congregations. In that sense we remain silent...and if we have an issue with something said or done, we are advised to speak to our husbands about the matter and then they will take up the issue (if it is an issue) with the body of elders.

in that way, we remain silent. But the scriptures do not say that women must not speak words of praise in public...which would include at public gatherings and congregation meetings. And Paul actually alluded to the prophesying of women in the congregation when he advised that they should were a head covering so as to not bring shame upon herself.
1Cor 11:5 but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head
So obviously Paul isnt saying women cannot pray, preach, or prophesy in public...its just that she must show that she is in subjection to the assigned roles of the males in the congregation. 1 Cor 11:3 But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God" so we are all subject to someone above us...christ is subject to God, man is subject to Christ, our children are subject to both mother and father and the women is subject to the man. We all have a place in Gods arrangement.

Pegg said:

Hi Gaura,

the context of this passage is relating to how meetings should be conducted in a congregation. Paul’s instruction to “keep silent” occurs three times in 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Each time, it is addressed, not only to women but to men also.
First, Paul said: “If someone speaks in a tongue, let it be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns; and let someone translate. But if there be no translator, let him keep silent in the congregation and speak to himself and to God.” (1 Corinthians 14:27, 28) That did not mean that such a person was never to speak at meetings but that there were times when he should be silent.

he said the same about prophets...: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern the meaning. But if there is a revelation to another one while sitting there, let the first one keep silent.” This meant, not that the first prophet was to refrain from speaking at meetings, but that he had to be silent at times

So we take his words with a similar purpose except with the added difference that women were not to be teachers in the congregation. Paul showed that it would be improper for a woman to assume the role of teacher because Christ has assigned that role specifically to men: “I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.”—1 Timothy 2:12.
In considering the role of women in Gods congregation, we refrain from trying to assume the role of a male by instructing the congregation. We dont challenge the authority of those who are taking the lead and directing the congregations. In that sense we remain silent...and if we have an issue with something said or done, we are advised to speak to our husbands about the matter and then they will take up the issue (if it is an issue) with the body of elders.

in that way, we remain silent. But the scriptures do not say that women must not speak words of praise in public...which would include at public gatherings and congregation meetings. And Paul actually alluded to the prophesying of women in the congregation when he advised that they should were a head covering so as to not bring shame upon herself.
1Cor 11:5 but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head
So obviously Paul isnt saying women cannot pray, preach, or prophesy in public...its just that she must show that she is in subjection to the assigned roles of the males in the congregation. 1 Cor 11:3 But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God" so we are all subject to someone above us...christ is subject to God, man is subject to Christ, our children are subject to both mother and father and the women is subject to the man. We all have a place in Gods arrangement.

Click to expand...

Pegg, thank you for responding!

Some of what you've said makes sense. However, I still wonder if during a meeting, a woman should be permitted to speak if this verse is accepted plainly. Preaching can also be in the subtle form of giving public opinion. So unless one is singing, giving insight, depth and ideas to some notion or some Bible truth seems to be a form of preaching as well to me.

Gaura Priya said:

"As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."

-- 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, NWT


So... why isn't this injunction by Paul followed? As much as I believe in modesty for a woman, and I get enough of that at the Hare Krishna temple and trying to be a good devotee, it's hard for me to swallow this idea that a woman can not preach or be a preacher of some sort.

So why does Paul give this injunction? What could have been the cultural context of the situation, and why is it that women are now ignoring one of such Pauline statements in order to modernise Christian teachings, especially when many claim to believe in the Bible 'alone'?

I have attended many churches and a few Christian meetings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and women are given a chance to give opinion or read passages of Scripture, when this injunction is clearly laid for Christian sisters.

Click to expand...

Angellous would have a good answer for this. There appeared to be very active, vocal women church leaders in Paul's day, which he appeared to approve of elsewhere in the Bible. My view is that in the passage you quote, Paul was speaking to a specific incident for a specific group.

Gaura Priya said:

"As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."

-- 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, NWT


So... why isn't this injunction by Paul followed? As much as I believe in modesty for a woman, and I get enough of that at the Hare Krishna temple and trying to be a good devotee, it's hard for me to swallow this idea that a woman can not preach or be a preacher of some sort.

So why does Paul give this injunction? What could have been the cultural context of the situation, and why is it that women are now ignoring one of such Pauline statements in order to modernise Christian teachings, especially when many claim to believe in the Bible 'alone'?

I have attended many churches and a few Christian meetings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and women are given a chance to give opinion or read passages of Scripture, when this injunction is clearly laid for Christian sisters.

Click to expand...

Women were about as respected as cattle back then. They werent educated in the religion and had to rely on their husbands to explain the teachings. Paul didnt want the "nosey" women asking alot of questions so he had them silenced while the service was going on.

Remember where Paul taught wasnt America.

Gaura Priya said:

"As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."

-- 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, NWT

Click to expand...

That translation is punctuated differently than most of the other ones I can find online. Consider the difference in phrasing between the NASB and the ASV (the other version I could find like the one above):

NASB:

31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of [a]peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

Click to expand...

ASV:

31 For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted;

32 and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets;
33 for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.

Click to expand...

The positioning of the period seems to make quite a bit of difference to the meaning of the text. In one case, "women should be silent" is an instruction to one church; in the other case, it's stating that this is a general rule in all churches.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

The positioning of the period seems to make quite a bit of difference to the meaning of the text. In one case, "women should be silent" is an instruction to one church; in the other case, it's stating that this is a general rule in all churches.

Click to expand...

Add that to the contradiction with places where Paul exhorts women in leadership positions, like Romans 16:1: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is the deacon of the church at Cenchreae." Interpreting his meaning after these considerations is difficult.

Songbird said:

My view is that in the passage you quote, Paul was speaking to a specific incident for a specific group.

Click to expand...

That interpretation works if we put a period after "saints", but not if we put a comma there.

And I'm guessing that in the original sources, there was no punctuation, right?

IMO, when we try to parse the passage either way, it makes more sense to say "as in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches." than it does to say "for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints."

That version (the NASB translation) basically amounts to saying "God is peaceful like he is in church", which I think pretty much nonsensical. The other interpretation, while I don't personally like it, is at least coherent.

Songbird said:

Add that to the contradiction with places where Paul exhorts women in leadership positions, like Romans 16:1: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is the deacon of the church at Cenchreae." Interpreting his meaning after these considerations is difficult.

Click to expand...

Well, speaking for myself, I don't approach the text of the Epistles by assuming that the author never changed his mind.

Heck - I don't even approach them with the assumption that the "Pauline" Epistles were all written by the same person. Edit: in fact, I'd bet good money that they weren't all written by the same person.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

That interpretation works if we put a period after "saints", but not if we put a comma there.

And I'm guessing that in the original sources, there was no punctuation, right?

IMO, when we try to parse the passage either way, it makes more sense to say "as in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches." than it does to say "for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints."

That version (the NASB translation) basically amounts to saying "God is peaceful like he is in church", which I think pretty much nonsensical. The other interpretation, while I don't personally like it, is at least coherent.

Click to expand...

I have no idea, honestly. Trying to guess, even educatedly, at the meaning of a 2000-year-old letter to a culture which no longer exists, in a language which has changed with references to which we are unfamiliar, and trying to apply them today seems impossible.

I wonder what scholars would make of many of my Facebook posts in 2000 years. Granted, they're obtuse and not formal letters. And half my friends don't understand my posts...so...forget that.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Well, speaking for myself, I don't approach the text of the Epistles by assuming that the author never changed his mind.

Heck - I don't even approach them with the assumption that the "Pauline" Epistles were all written by the same person. Edit: in fact, I'd bet good money that they weren't all written by the same person.

Click to expand...

Add that to the list of things that makes his instruction difficult to decipher.

Songbird said:

I have no idea, honestly. Trying to guess, even educatedly, at the meaning of a 2000-year-old letter to a culture which no longer exists, in a language which has changed with references to which we are unfamiliar, and trying to apply them today seems impossible.

Click to expand...

Heh... if this is valid, then it's a problem for much more than this one passage. You're basically saying that trying to base a modern religion on the Bible is a fool's errand.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Heh... if this is valid, then it's a problem for much more than this one passage. You're basically saying that trying to base a modern religion on the Bible is a fool's errand.

Click to expand...

Look at the pretty ladybug on the wall....:run:

Songbird said:

Add that to the list of things that makes his instruction difficult to decipher.

Click to expand...

There you go. Ancient cultures arent explained in the Bible. They were the Modern people at that time.

Cultural idioms, language, customs, ceremonies are not explained in the Semitic scriptures because the people that the scriptures were written to understand them.

"The Syrian Christ" by Abraham M. Rihbany, explains how Near Easterner life was reflected in the Bible.

I think also there is evidence that "Paul" was sometimes re-written by a certain early church to reflect their views because, if its in the bible you have to follow it.

Thats why Paul is seen to be contradicting himself in different books. On one hand he seems like a nice fellow just teaching people, then on the other hand he's suddenly sexist and strict and against all things worldly and of the flesh.

So, under that impression, Paul is not always Paul, but sometimes another entity claiming to be Paul in an attempt to put rules into his letters.


Just what I have heard though (from a couple different sources)

Songbird said:

Angellous would have a good answer for this. There appeared to be very active, vocal women church leaders in Paul's day, which he appeared to approve of elsewhere in the Bible. My view is that in the passage you quote, Paul was speaking to a specific incident for a specific group.

Click to expand...

In the mean time, I can give you a good example of how respect for women and the role of women in the Church was radically changed after the first century: In Romans 16 v.7 the Apostle Paul praises an apostle named Junia in the original Greek manuscripts. The name Junia was altered to the male form "Junius" to make it appear that he was talking about a man. A brief explanation can be found here: The Apostle Junia

In Misquoting Jesus, Bart Ehrman contends that all of the verses attributed to Paul, demanding that women be silent in church, and the man is the head of the woman yadayadayada....were all added later when the Church became Romanized, since the Roman Empire had become increasingly patriarchal in the final centuries of its existence, and removed rights granted to women during the age of the Roman Republic.

work in progress said:

In the mean time, I can give you a good example of how respect for women and the role of women in the Church was radically changed after the first century: In Romans 16 v.7 the Apostle Paul praises an apostle named Junia in the original Greek manuscripts. The name Junia was altered to the male form "Junius" to make it appear that he was talking about a man. A brief explanation can be found here: The Apostle Junia

In Misquoting Jesus, Bart Ehrman contends that all of the verses attributed to Paul, demanding that women be silent in church, and the man is the head of the woman yadayadayada....were all added later when the Church became Romanized, since the Roman Empire had become increasingly patriarchal in the final centuries of its existence, and removed rights granted to women during the age of the Roman Republic.

Click to expand...

That's why people have to get the SEMITIC meanings, not Western Greko/Roman.

Gaura Priya said:

Pegg, thank you for responding!

Some of what you've said makes sense. However, I still wonder if during a meeting, a woman should be permitted to speak if this verse is accepted plainly. Preaching can also be in the subtle form of giving public opinion. So unless one is singing, giving insight, depth and ideas to some notion or some Bible truth seems to be a form of preaching as well to me.

Click to expand...

the thing is we cannot take one verse and assume that it is absolute in meaning. We have to weight it up with many other verses and teachings in order to understand it.

Is Paul really saying that females must not literally speak in church? We could read it to mean that because that is how it is written, but when we compare it to what women were doing back then, we can clearly see that women were not silent observers...they were active ministers, they were preachers and they were given the same gifts as the men were given.

Matthew 27:55 Moreover, many women were there viewing from a distance, who had accompanied Jesus from Gal′i‧lee to minister to him;

Luke 8:3 and Jo‧an′na the wife of Chu′za, Herod’s man in charge, and Su‧san′na and many other women, who were ministering to them from their belongings.

Acts 2:18 and even upon my men slaves and upon my women slaves I will pour out some of my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.


Romans 16:12 Greet Try‧phae′na and Try‧pho′sa, [women] who are working hard in [the] Lord. Greet Per′sis our beloved one, for she performed many labors in [the] Lord. ...15 Greet Phi‧lol′o‧gus and Julia, Ne′reus and his sister, and O‧lym′pas, and all the holy ones with them

Luke 2:36 Now there was Anna a prophetess, Phan′u‧el’s daughter, of Ash′er’s tribe (this woman was well along in years, and had lived with a husband for seven years from her virginity, 37 and she was a widow now eighty-four years old), who was never missing from the temple, rendering sacred service night and day

You can see from the above scriptures that women had played a role in the worship of God before the christian congregation was established, and for a long time thereafter. So we cannot take Pauls words to mean that women should not literally speak at a congregation or assembly of christians. That didnt happen back then and it doesnt need to happen today.

In the book of revelation, Jesus speaks about a certain woman named 'Jezebel' in one of the congregations (she could be a real individual or the name may refer to a group of women)
Revelation 2:18 “And to the angel of the congregation in Thy‧a‧ti′ra write: These are the things that the Son of God says,...20 “‘Nevertheless, I do hold [this] against you, that you tolerate that woman Jez′e‧bel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and misleads my slaves to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 And I gave her time to repent, but she is not willing to repent of her fornication. 22 Look! I am about to throw her into a sickbed,...24 “‘However, I say to the rest of YOU who are in Thy‧a‧ti′ra, all those who do not have this teaching, the very ones who did not get to know the “deep things of Satan,” as they say: I am not putting upon YOU any other burden. 25 Just the same, hold fast what YOU have until I come.

If this was a real woman, it might explain why Paul wrote that women should not be teachers or exercise authority over the men in the congregations. Perhaps there was a women or group of women who were causing trouble by teaching false doctrines in the congregation of Thyatira.

Gaura Priya said:

"As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, , mind. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."

-- 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, NWT

So... why isn't this injunction by Paul followed?

Click to expand...

It is, among the saints. Where it is not, there is nothing significant to stay for.

work in progress said:

In the mean time, I can give you a good example of how respect for women and the role of women in the Church was radically changed after the first century: In Romans 16 v.7 the Apostle Paul praises an apostle named Junia in the original Greek manuscripts. The name Junia was altered to the male form "Junius" to make it appear that he was talking about a man. A brief explanation can be found here: The Apostle Junia

In Misquoting Jesus, Bart Ehrman contends that all of the verses attributed to Paul, demanding that women be silent in church, and the man is the head of the woman yadayadayada....were all added later when the Church became Romanized, since the Roman Empire had become increasingly patriarchal in the final centuries of its existence, and removed rights granted to women during the age of the Roman Republic.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reading recommendations. I first heard of Ehrman on The Daily Show.