Random Articles

Let Your Women KEEP SILENCE

November 12, 2022July 3, 2025 by Laura Lee

(Copyright) by Rich Traver (Clifton, Colorado)
*Long-Standing Tradition, in Churches of nearly Every Persuasion Generally Excludes Women from serving in Pastoral Capacities. What is the Source of Our ongoing Prohibition Against Women Speakers?* The Apostle Paul addressed a growing question that was beginning to raise concerns in the early New Testament Church. In synagogues of that generation the issue would not have come to the fore, as women were strictly prohibited from participating in any speaking capacity. The focal scripture is the passage found in 1^st Corinthians 14, verses 34 and 35, which reads: “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. 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.” Another pointed passage that factors into this issue is found in 1^st Timothy, chapter 2, verses 11-12: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” In any male dominated entity, this apparently clear prohibition settles the matter rather conclusively. But that doesn’t put the matter to rest fully with all people in our generation. There are a number of questions that this issue raises, and it can pose certain objections, in light of more modern considerations, not the least of which involves the elevation of the status of women in modern societies, as opposed to their status in antiquity. How it Has Been Understood Traditionally, over the centuries, Paul’s admonition has been understood to be prohibiting any form of public speaking by women. But there are a number of interesting aspects to Paul’s apparent prohibition that casual readers haven’t taken under consideration. Granted, at face value, such conclusions, as have been drawn over the centuries, are logical. But shouldn’t we plumb the full scope of his instruction? There IS more to this matter than might meet the eye of the casual reader. Was it Paul Alone? First, we should ask why it is that no other New Testament writer saw need to address this consideration. Paul was primarily the “apostle to the Gentiles” and saw need to bring the matter to the fore in Corinth, and later with Timothy who was serving in eastern Anatolia (Turkey). Did the situation that was occurring in Corinth (Greece) differ from that in other congregations, say those with a more Jewish heritage? Secondly, the instruction given to Corinth wasn’t addressing exactly the same issue as Timothy was encountering in Ephesus. When we blend the two passages together, we are prone to let one color the other, causing us to overlook essential aspects that Paul was addressing in the Corinthian situation. What WAS Happening? When we pull the verses in question out of their general context, we can lose some of the relevant considerations. The context of 1^st Corinthians 14 deals basically with orderliness in Services. Paul encourages the expressions of the spiritual gift of prophecy, to the benefit of the congregation. (e.g., v. 12) As it might involve speaking in tongues, it must be with an interpreter, otherwise there is no edification. (vs. 17 & 27) Comprehension on the part of the hearer is the overriding consideration. (v. 24) Paul was concerned that Services do not devolve into raucous confusion, rather that all things should be done in a decent and in an orderly manner. (v. 40, concluding the chapter). So, we can see that his underlying concern was a proper and respectful decorum in the conduct of Services. In the middle of this narrative, Paul addresses something else that was going on. It was how the women were conducting themselves. It is when he gets to the point of speaking of “confusion” (v. 33) that he addresses what certain women were doing. This is not a point made without direct relevance, it was in response to what was taking place. Paul makes reference to the heretofore prohibition of women speaking (the word is better translated “speaking out”) in a group setting such as during the Church Service. Did this include tongues-speaking or prophesying as is the major subject of the chapter? Perhaps, but his wording suggests that it involved either questioning the speakers openly or attempting to prophesy on their own, and in doing so exposing their obvious ignorance in certain areas of understanding. Not so much a simple question that could be answered quickly and easily, but things that needed more involved instruction. It’s with that in mind that Paul admonishes them to discuss the matters in private, “at home” with their husbands. Women were apparently taking the liberty of interrupting the Service with “questions” or questionable assertions that were disrupting the “order” that Paul was attempting to interject into their formal gatherings. Just as a consideration, would it be inappropriate for a woman to lean over and ask her husband a question during a Service, not in a voice that anyone else would hear? Taking Paul’s words very literally, some might say, yes, it would be! Was It Just Married Women? Some might note that Paul was referring primarily to married women, those who HAD husbands. What of younger unmarried women or widows? He doesn’t say. His admonition revolves around those with husbands who are themselves indirectly admonished to attend to their responsibilities “at home” in making sure their wives’ questions are answered. Paul draws-in the marital relationship as one reason for what he was saying. When a woman (a married woman) speaks out in Services, she reflects upon her husband, she reflects upon her married state and her being in subjection to him. That is the law that Paul made reference to. Part of the “confusion” then would be her independent outspokenness. It would reflect upon him, and badly, if she spoke out with a matter that revealed her ignorance in any important doctrinal area. Not only the disruptive aspect of interrupting the speaker, but also exposing her disregard of her husband’s authority by publicly challenging a man before the congregation. (Think what the situation would be if the speaker WAS her husband!) Thus, the question: If she was in full agreement with the inspired speaker, why would she speak out? The reaction itself suggests what was really happening. Let’s realize that the point of Paul’s statement in 1^st Corinthians was not speaking in the sense of a woman prophesying or teaching. That is more the point of Paul’s later admonition to Timothy. Conduct of Services Most of us in this day and age are not familiar with how a Church Service was conducted in the first century. The format used in our present day was not how they did things. We see a glimpse of their order of Services (in the synagogue) that persons from the audience were called upon to come up and read a passage of Scripture and then expound upon its meaning. (Luke 4:16-21) The synagogue service was more “interactive” than we are accustomed to today. Even the opening verses of 1^st Corinthians 14 reveal a less structured format. Various ones sought to spontaneously add what they were given by prophesying or speaking in tongues! That could be a cause of confusion! Another aspect of early day Services was its open interactivity: Likely much more than we would be comfortable with today. Men at times might interrupt a speaker with a point of doctrine or a question. That’s why Paul saw need to admonish caution against their gatherings becoming too disorderly. Add into that the factor of women doing the same, it injected another area of consideration: a non-submissive demeanor and the impropriety of publicly challenging a man. We should also realize that open interactivity created an argumentative atmosphere at times. When men argue publicly, they take rebuke differently than would a more emotional person. If a woman was rebuked by another person, she would likely react to that differently than a man would. Men are known to insult the snot out of each other, and then end the day still as good friends. But a woman so rebuffed or rebuked, especially before the congregation would likely react differently. The risk of her being offended would be very high. Paul likely realized what could occur and for this reason also, recommended her silence, except perhaps speaking to or through her husband. Also, if a woman were insulted so publicly, wouldn’t the husband be obligated to come to her defense? His not doing so could be interpreted as reflecting obvious disrespect toward her. We can see in this the potential of the “discord and confusion” that Paul sought to avoid, both in the Service and in their marital situations. But, before going further, let’s realize that the prohibition against women speaking (better rendered: speaking out) was more in the context of being disruptive in a Service, not so much speaking in an official capacity. Before continuing, we should consider this very revealing expose found in the Adam Clarke Commentary regarding 1^st Corinthians 14:34: “Let your women keep silence in the churches – This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are these: ישרפו דברי תורה ואל ימסרו לנשים (yisrephu dibrey torah veal yimsaru lenashim), “Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.” Now, this is interesting in that it shows a general attitude toward women, where they regarded them as unworthy of being given the word of the law so that they might teach. Is this something else that Paul was suggesting they change by encouraging the husbands TO instruct them nevertheless? “This was their condition till the time of the Gospel, when, according to the prediction of Joel, the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well as the men, that they might prophesy, i.e., teach. And that they did prophesy or teach is evident from what the apostle says, 1 Corinthians 11:5, where he lays down rules to regulate this part of their conduct while ministering in the church. “But does not what the apostle says here contradict that statement, and show that the words in chapter 11 should be understood in another sense? For, here it is expressly said that they should keep silence in the church; for it was not permitted to a woman to speak. Both places seem perfectly consistent. It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, etc., in the synagogue; but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and, if they wished to learn any thing, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, etc. But this by no means intimated that when a woman received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, that she was not to obey that influence; on the contrary, she was to obey it, and the apostle lays down directions in chapter 11 for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, etc., in the Christian Church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues; together with the attempts to usurp any authority over the man, by setting up their judgment in opposition to them; for the apostle has in view, especially, acts of disobedience, arrogance, etc., of which no woman would be guilty who was under the influence of the Spirit of God. “But – to be under obedience, as also saith the law – This is a reference to Genesis 3:16: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. From this it is evident that it was the disorderly and disobedient that the apostle had in view; and not any of those on whom God had poured out his Spirit.” This in mind, we can better understand Paul’s background position on women speaking out in Church. But this commentary explains the REAL issue, being disruptive and contentious, not so much speaking, such as in praying or prophesying, as we read of in 1^st Corinthians 11:5, which apparently was permitted. Paul himself lays down the guidelines for that in the same chapter. In Authority Over a Man! It is when we consider the instruction given to Timothy that Paul specifically brings out the second consideration. In 1^st Timothy 2, the matter of a woman serving in a formal teaching capacity is addressed. There he makes the point that serving in an instructive capacity puts the speaker in effective “authority” over the men in attendance. Now we know that this prohibition would not include instructing other women or children. It involves those situations where a woman would be teaching in a congregational setting that included adult men. In other words, she herself being the primary speaker. In our day and age, this is perhaps the major consideration. But in Paul’s time, there was the added consideration of the propriety within the husband / wife relationship. Paul makes frequent reference to it, bringing in the wife’s submission to her husband, both in her praying and prophesying activities, but also in any verbal engagement with the speakers during a congregational Service. When praying or prophesying, she was to have her head covered in reflection of her marital status, but also was to refrain from open outspokenness when it came to challenging a point of doctrine. What is Meant by SILENCE? Today, we might interpret these admonitions by Paul with a different take than was originally intended. In fact, there can be significant differences as to the full meaning of what Paul said, depending on where a reader chooses to draw the line. Does “not speaking” apply to just during a formal Service or does it involve the time when she is on the premises? May the wife sing, as that would involve her voice being heard? Is she permitted to give a prayer request? Would it be inappropriate for her to update others in the audience as to the status of someone who is experiencing health issues? To what degree must she remain silent? Then again. Paul lays down proper decorum for when a wife might pray or prophesy (with her head covered) in public. Would sign language be the preferable method of communication? Different interpreters might give differing answers to each question. Often there are inadequacies when translating from one language into another or in transposing one cultural norm into another. The word Paul uses for “speak” is not a simple uttering of ones’ voice. The English word choice might suggest that. The original Greek is “laleo”, which might be better translated “be outspoken”. The Adam Clark Commentary given above would support that meaning, where it says: “It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, etc., in the synagogue; but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and, if they wished to learn any thing, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, etc.” Here we can see that this commentator realized the more comprehensive meaning of the term Paul chose to use. Not all religious persuasions are found to be that astute. Two Different Considerations So, while Paul in 1^st Corinthians 14 addressed the propriety of a woman being outspoken in a congregational setting, interrupting and / or publicly disputing a matter, he did so under a secondary consideration of the marital relationship and a woman’s need to remain submissive to her husband’s authority in their relationship. Paul does not state the same thing as it might involve a widow or spinster, though it could be said the same carries over by implication. Also, let’s not forget the underlying context of Paul’s admonition in 1^st Corinthians 14, that of not creating “discord or confusion”. That would involve not only disruptions in a Service but could also create stresses within a marital relationship. But in 1^st Timothy 2, a different consideration is brought into the picture. Under that consideration he addresses the matter of a woman being in a teaching position, those which would effectively place her in authority over men. To some degree that could be deduced from the 1^st Corinthians passage, but not so obviously. 1^st Timothy 2 relates more to a woman assuming the role of teacher over an assembly, not so much her indecorous interruption of Services or apparent impropriety with her marital relationship. Now such a thing as a woman speaker, though perhaps not common, was known, as can be seen in places such as Revelation 2:20. The problem there wasn’t so much Jezebel’s gender (and must we presume she was married?) it was her corrupted teachings. Again, would Paul have addressed the matter to the Ephesian congregation where Timothy was serving, as he did, if such things weren’t even happening? That situation where a woman was teaching was perhaps just one generation later than when Timothy was in Ephesus. Thyatira was literally just down the road! Now, this second consideration expands on the questions that might be asked. Would it be inappropriate for a woman to be a choir director? May she lead congregational singing? May she serve as an usher? What about special music or playing the piano? Would just reading a scripture to the congregation be pushing the envelope? May she perform clerical duties? These would reflect more on the “being in authority” matter. Ask Her Husband at Home Why does Paul advocate a wife refrain from questioning and instead ask her husband at home? Would it be inappropriate to ever ask a question in a congregational setting? Would it be indecorous to lean over and quietly ask something of her husband there in Services? The preferability of asking at home reflects the responsibility of the husband to be the spiritual leader in the home. Asking a question, of and by itself, was not the entire issue. A widow or young person might ask a question in an informal gathering, such as at a Bible Study or Fellowship Gathering. But Paul, in stating what he did, puts more of the responsibility for the husband to become better informed and to be able to reflect the spiritual leadership appropriate to his role in his family. In this too, Paul is showing the same consideration to the husband’s role that he is expecting their wives to show. How Commentaries Weigh-In Expositors Bible Commentary: Has this to say regarding1^st Timothy 2:11-12: “The teaching of these two verses is similar to that found in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. There Paul tells the women that they are not allowed to talk out loud in the public services; here he says that they are to “learn in quietness and full submission.” Titus 2:5 suggests that he means a wife is to be submissive to her husband. But it may well have the wider application of “submission to constituted authority, i.e., the officials and regulations of the Church” (Ramsay, quoted in Lock, p. 32). The attitude of the Greeks toward a women’s place in society was not altogether uniform. Plato gave them practical equality with men. But Aristotle thought their activities should be severely limited, and his views generally prevailed. Plutarch (Moral Essays, p. 785) sounds much the same note as Paul does here. (It may be some of this independent attitude, common in their Hellenistic culture, that saw need for Paul to dampen with clearest admonition.) The expression “full submission” needs to be treated intelligently. Vine offers this helpful comment: “The injunction is not directed towards a surrender of mind and conscience, or the abandonment of the duty of private judgment; the phrase “with all subjection” is a warning against the usurpation of authority, as, e.g., in the next verse” (p. 45). Specifically, Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.” Some have even said that the apostle’s prohibition excludes women from teaching Sunday school classes. But he is talking about the public assemblies of the church. Paul speaks appreciatively of the fact that Timothy himself had been taught the right way by his godly mother and grandmother (2Tim 1:5; 3:15). The apostle also writes to Titus that the older women are to train the younger (Titus 2:3-4). Women have always carried the major responsibility for teaching small children, in both home and church school. And what could we have done without them! The word silent translates en hesychia, exactly the same phrase that is rendered “in quietness” in v. 11. Quietness is an important Christian virtue. Paul was especially opposed to confusion in the public services of the church (1Cor 14:33).” [1] And in 1^st Corinthians 14, that was his major point. JF&B Commentary [2] says: “… for a woman to speak in public would be an act of independence, as if they were not subject to their husbands…” They also suggest: “… shame would be better translated: indecorous” A.T. Robertson Commentary: “silence” comparable to disorders caused by speaking in tongues. … women were creating disturbances by their dress (v.28) and now by their speech. … (i.e., outspokenness) Daughters of Philip were prophetesses.” (Acts 21:8-9) Matthew Henry: “women did pray and prophesy in assemblies… (1Cor. 11:5) …learning at home puts the onus on the man to remain superior to his wife in spiritual understanding… (it shames the man if she appears superior to him in this area…)” So, In Summary When we examine Paul’s overall narrative as it regards the role of women in the Church, we are acquainted with three primary considerations: 1) The disruptiveness of a woman being outspoken, interrupting or taking exception to what a speaker was presenting, 2) the impropriety of a woman in a way discrediting her marital relationship and the obligations to reflect an appropriate submissiveness, and perhaps most importantly, 3) the impropriety of taking a leadership role over men. When these three considerations have been appropriately factored-in, can we say we have complied with the criteria Paul laid down? The problem is, when religious institutions develop a culture where women are basically allowed no role at all in the congregation. (For that matter, in the WCG culture, and many of the groups developed from that heritage, even the men are compelled into a silence, being allowed no say or service function. It’s all limited to a selected few whose choice for service, typically, will enhance the prestige of the resident overlord.) Now, Paul’s position doesn’t exclude women from any and all important roles within the Church. What those permissible roles might be are subject to varying opinions, which can prove divisive. Not all agree on what roles are appropriate. But Paul laid a foundation. Taking into account his above three prime considerations, we should be provided with sufficient underlying basis upon which determinations are made as to what service roles are proper. A Contempt for Women? Paul has been labelled as a ‘woman hater’ by some who chafe at such restrictions. It can be taken either of two ways from there. Some can take the position that women ought to be allowed more latitude in serving the congregation while others may use Paul’s admonitions as justification for suppressing women to an even greater degree than was ever intended. It is clear that Paul worked with and appreciated the services of many women in the Church. Consider these passages from Romans chapter 16: “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ. Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us. Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me…” Obviously, there were noteworthy individuals, women, who were of great value in the Church. Regarding Phebe, for her to be attending to Church business, and for Paul to instruct those in Rome to assist her, suggests she was in charge of some activity essential to the Church there. She was obviously very involved also in the personal lives of many, succoring them in some manner. How many like that do we see today? Mary also is commended as a fellow laborer. Then there were husband / wife teams who at times carried congregations and educated even the ministry. [3] Paul gives special mention to Priscilla (mentioning her first here and in later references) with Aquila her husband. Orderliness: Next to Godliness! What Paul has to say regarding the role of women is not to put down women nor to discredit them or exclude them from any service. His admonitions were intended to create an order in the Church, which is consistent with the context in 1^st Corinthians 14: *All things being done decently and in order! (v. 40) He advocates a consistent decorum that promotes order in a Services format. He advocates a woman’s deference toward her husband that promotes order in the marital relationship, (which incidentally illustrates the Church’s relationship with Christ). [4] Thirdly, he advocates a proper role within the congregations’ political structure that promotes order within its educational operations. None of this should be regarded as intending to degrade anyone, nor should any man use it as justification for a contemptuous attitude of others. May the Spirit of God guide us all in our acceptance of the assignments of women to various appropriate service functions in the Church, recognizing that not all see things identically. We all can carry ‘baggage’ as did the first century Jewish contingent. As we seek to comply with Paul’s admonitions, we should do so without creating confusion or discord of a different sort, nor create any divisive spirit within the congregations. When the Spirit of God inspires genuine enthusiasm in anyone, man, woman, or youth, [5] woe be to that individual who would in any way suppress that enthusiasm! & ———————————————————————–* Reprinted with permission from: Golden Sheaves https://www.goldensheaves.org/ ———————————————————————– [1] *Expositor’s Bible Commentary*, The, Pradis CD-ROM:1 Timothy/Exposition of 1 Timothy/V. Worship and Conduct (2:1-3:16)/C. Women (2:9-15), Book Version: 4.0.2 [2] *Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Bible Commentary* [3] 1^st Cor. 4:6-9 Apollos, an eloquent speaker, later alluded to as an apostle, was instructed more adequately in the Faith by this couple. Acts 18:24-26. [4] Ephesians 5:22-33. [5] Acts 2:17

(Copyright) by Rich Traver (Clifton, Colorado)

Long-Standing Tradition, in Churches of nearly Every Persuasion Generally Excludes Women from serving in Pastoral Capacities. What is the Source of Our ongoing Prohibition Against Women Speakers?

The Apostle Paul addressed a growing question that was beginning to raise concerns in the early New Testament Church. In synagogues of that generation the issue would not have come to the fore, as women were strictly prohibited from participating in any speaking capacity.

The focal scripture is the passage found in 1^st Corinthians 14, verses 34 and 35, which reads: “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. 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.”

Another pointed passage that factors into this issue is found in 1^st Timothy, chapter 2, verses 11-12: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” In any male dominated entity, this apparently clear prohibition settles the matter rather conclusively.

But that doesn’t put the matter to rest fully with all people in our generation.   There are a number of questions that this issue raises, and it can pose certain objections, in light of more modern considerations, not the least of which involves the elevation of the status of women in modern societies, as opposed to their status in antiquity.

How it Has Been Understood
Traditionally, over the centuries, Paul’s admonition has been understood to be prohibiting any form of public speaking by women. But there are a number of interesting aspects to Paul’s apparent prohibition that casual readers haven’t taken under consideration. Granted, at face value, such conclusions, as have been drawn over the centuries, are logical. But shouldn’t we plumb the full scope of his instruction? There IS more to this matter than might meet the eye of the casual reader.

Was it Paul Alone?
First, we should ask why it is that no other New Testament writer saw need to address this consideration. Paul was primarily the “apostle to the Gentiles” and saw need to bring the matter to the fore in Corinth, and later with Timothy who was serving in eastern Anatolia (Turkey). Did the situation that was occurring in Corinth (Greece) differ from that in other congregations, say those with a more Jewish heritage?

Secondly, the instruction given to Corinth wasn’t addressing exactly the same issue as Timothy was encountering in Ephesus. When we blend the two passages together, we are prone to let one color the other, causing us to overlook essential aspects that Paul was addressing in the Corinthian situation.

What WAS Happening?
When we pull the verses in question out of their general context, we can lose some of the relevant considerations. The context of 1^st Corinthians 14 deals basically with orderliness in Services. Paul encourages the expressions of the spiritual gift of prophecy, to the benefit of the congregation. (e.g., v. 12) As it might involve speaking in tongues, it must be with an interpreter, otherwise there is no edification. (vs. 17 & 27) Comprehension on the part of the hearer is the overriding consideration. (v. 24) Paul was concerned that Services do not devolve into raucous confusion, rather that all things should be done in a decent and in an orderly manner. (v. 40, concluding the chapter). So, we can see that his underlying concern was a proper and respectful decorum in the conduct of Services.

In the middle of this narrative, Paul addresses something else that was going on. It was how the women were conducting themselves. It is when he gets to the point of speaking of “confusion” (v. 33) that he addresses what certain women were doing. This is not a point made without direct relevance, it was in response to what was taking place. Paul makes reference to the heretofore prohibition of women speaking (the word is better translated “speaking out”) in a group setting such as during the Church Service.

Did this include tongues-speaking or prophesying as is the major subject of the chapter? Perhaps, but his wording suggests that it involved either questioning the speakers openly or attempting to prophesy on their own, and in doing so exposing their obvious ignorance in certain areas of understanding. Not so much a simple question that could be answered quickly and easily, but things that needed more involved instruction. It’s with that in mind that Paul admonishes them to discuss the matters in private, “at home” with their husbands. Women were apparently taking the liberty of interrupting the Service with “questions” or questionable assertions that were disrupting the “order” that Paul was attempting to interject into their formal gatherings.

Just as a consideration, would it be inappropriate for a woman to lean over and ask her husband a question during a Service, not in a voice that anyone else would hear?   Taking Paul’s words very literally, some might say, yes, it would be!

Was It Just Married Women?
Some might note that Paul was referring primarily to married women, those who HAD husbands. What of younger unmarried women or widows? He doesn’t say. His admonition revolves around those with husbands who are themselves indirectly admonished to attend to their responsibilities “at home” in making sure their wives’ questions are answered. Paul draws-in the marital relationship as one reason for what he was saying. When a woman (a married woman) speaks out in Services, she reflects upon her husband, she reflects upon her married state and her being in subjection to him. That is the law that Paul made reference to.

Part of the “confusion” then would be her independent outspokenness. It would reflect upon him, and badly, if she spoke out with a matter that revealed her ignorance in any important doctrinal area. Not only the disruptive aspect of interrupting the speaker, but also exposing her disregard of her husband’s authority by publicly challenging a man before the congregation. (Think what the situation would be if the speaker WAS her husband!) Thus, the question: If she was in full agreement with the inspired speaker, why would she speak out? The reaction itself suggests what was really happening.

Let’s realize that the point of Paul’s statement in 1^st Corinthians was not speaking in the sense of a woman prophesying or teaching. That is more the point of Paul’s later admonition to Timothy.

Conduct of Services
Most of us in this day and age are not familiar with how a Church Service was conducted in the first century. The format used in our present day was not how they did things. We see a glimpse of their order of Services (in the synagogue) that persons from the audience were called upon to come up and read a passage of Scripture and then expound upon its meaning. (Luke 4:16-21) The synagogue service was more “interactive” than we are accustomed to today. Even the opening verses of 1^st Corinthians 14 reveal a less structured format. Various ones sought to spontaneously add what they were given by prophesying or speaking in tongues! That could be a cause of confusion!

Another aspect of early day Services was its open interactivity: Likely much more than we would be comfortable with today. Men at times might interrupt a speaker with a point of doctrine or a question. That’s why Paul saw need to admonish caution against their gatherings becoming too disorderly. Add into that the factor of women doing the same, it injected another area of consideration: a non-submissive demeanor and the impropriety of publicly challenging a man.

We should also realize that open interactivity created an argumentative atmosphere at times. When men argue publicly, they take rebuke differently than would a more emotional person. If a woman was rebuked by another person, she would likely react to that differently than a man would. Men are known to insult the snot out of each other, and then end the day still as good friends. But a woman so rebuffed or rebuked, especially before the congregation would likely react differently. The risk of her being offended would be very high. Paul likely realized what could occur and for this reason also, recommended her silence, except perhaps speaking to or through her
husband.

Also, if a woman were insulted so publicly, wouldn’t the husband be obligated to come to her defense? His not doing so could be interpreted as reflecting obvious disrespect toward her. We can see in this the potential of the “discord and confusion” that Paul sought to avoid, both in the Service and in their marital situations.

But, before going further, let’s realize that the prohibition against women speaking (better rendered: speaking out) was more in the context of being disruptive in a Service, not so much speaking in an official capacity.

Before continuing, we should consider this very revealing expose found in the Adam Clarke Commentary regarding 1^st Corinthians 14:34:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches – This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are these: ישרפו דברי תורה ואל ימסרו לנשים (yisrephu dibrey torah veal yimsaru lenashim), “Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.”

Now, this is interesting in that it shows a general attitude toward women, where they regarded them as unworthy of being given the word of the law so that they might teach. Is this something else that Paul was suggesting they change by encouraging the husbands TO instruct them nevertheless?

“This was their condition till the time of the Gospel, when, according to the prediction of Joel, the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well as the men, that they might prophesy, i.e., teach. And that they did prophesy or teach is evident from what the apostle says, 1 Corinthians 11:5, where he lays down rules to regulate this part of their conduct while ministering in the church.

“But does not what the apostle says here contradict that statement, and show that the words in chapter 11 should be understood in another sense? For, here it is expressly said that they should keep silence in the church; for it was not permitted to a woman to speak. Both places seem perfectly consistent. It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, etc., in the synagogue; but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and, if they wished to learn any thing, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, etc. But this by no means intimated that when a woman received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, that she was not to obey that influence; on the contrary, she was to obey it, and the apostle lays down directions in chapter 11 for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, etc., in the Christian Church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues; together with the attempts to usurp any authority over the man, by setting up their judgment in opposition to them; for the apostle has in view, especially, acts of disobedience, arrogance, etc., of which no woman would be guilty who was under the influence of the Spirit of God.

“But – to be under obedience, as also saith the law – This is a reference to Genesis 3:16: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. From this it is evident that it was the disorderly and disobedient that the apostle had in view; and not any of those on whom God had poured out his Spirit.”

This in mind, we can better understand Paul’s background position on women speaking out in Church. But this commentary explains the REAL issue, being disruptive and contentious, not so much speaking, such as in praying or prophesying, as we read of in 1^st Corinthians 11:5, which apparently was permitted. Paul himself lays down the guidelines for that in the same chapter.

In Authority Over a Man!
It is when we consider the instruction given to Timothy that Paul specifically brings out the second consideration. In 1^st Timothy 2, the matter of a woman serving in a formal teaching capacity is addressed. There he makes the point that serving in an instructive capacity puts the speaker in effective “authority” over the men in attendance. Now we know that this prohibition would not include instructing other women or children. It involves those situations where a woman would be teaching in a congregational setting that included adult men. In other words, she herself being the primary speaker.

In our day and age, this is perhaps the major consideration. But in Paul’s time, there was the added consideration of the propriety within the husband / wife relationship. Paul makes frequent reference to it, bringing in the wife’s submission to her husband, both in her praying and prophesying activities, but also in any verbal engagement with the speakers during a congregational Service. When praying or prophesying, she was to have her head covered in reflection of her marital status, but also was to refrain from open outspokenness when it came to challenging a point of doctrine.

What is Meant by SILENCE?
Today, we might interpret these admonitions by Paul with a different take than was originally intended. In fact, there can be significant differences as to the full meaning of what Paul said, depending on where a reader chooses to draw the line.

Does “not speaking” apply to just during a formal Service or does it involve the time when she is on the premises? May the wife sing, as that would involve her voice being heard? Is she permitted to give a prayer request? Would it be inappropriate for her to update others in the audience as to the status of someone who is experiencing health issues? To what degree must she remain silent? Then again. Paul lays down proper decorum for when a wife might pray or prophesy (with her head covered) in public. Would sign language be the preferable method of communication? Different interpreters might give differing answers to each question.

Often there are inadequacies when translating from one language into another or in transposing one cultural norm into another. The word Paul uses for “speak” is not a simple uttering of ones’ voice. The English word choice might suggest that. The original Greek is “laleo”, which might be better translated “be outspoken”. The Adam Clark Commentary given above would support that meaning, where it says: “It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, etc., in the synagogue; but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and, if they wished to learn any thing, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, etc.”

Here we can see that this commentator realized the more comprehensive meaning of the term Paul chose to use. Not all religious persuasions are found to be that astute.

Two Different Considerations
So, while Paul in 1^st Corinthians 14 addressed the propriety of a woman being outspoken in a congregational setting, interrupting and / or publicly disputing a matter, he did so under a secondary consideration of the marital relationship and a woman’s need to remain submissive to her husband’s authority in their relationship. Paul does not state the same thing as it might involve a widow or spinster, though it could be said the same carries over by implication.

Also, let’s not forget the underlying context of Paul’s admonition in 1^st Corinthians 14, that of not creating “discord or confusion”. That would involve not only disruptions in a Service but could also create stresses within a marital relationship.

But in 1^st Timothy 2, a different consideration is brought into the picture. Under that consideration he addresses the matter of a woman being in a teaching position, those which would effectively place her in authority over men. To some degree that could be deduced from the 1^st Corinthians passage, but not so obviously. 1^st Timothy 2 relates more to a woman assuming the role of teacher over an assembly, not so much her indecorous interruption of Services or apparent impropriety with her marital relationship. Now such a thing as a woman speaker, though perhaps not common, was known, as can be seen in places such as Revelation 2:20. The problem there wasn’t so much Jezebel’s gender (and must we presume she was married?) it was her corrupted teachings. Again, would Paul have addressed the matter to the Ephesian congregation where Timothy was serving, as he did, if such things weren’t even happening?

That situation where a woman was teaching was perhaps just one generation later than when Timothy was in Ephesus. Thyatira was literally just down the road!

Now, this second consideration expands on the questions that might be asked. Would it be inappropriate for a woman to be a choir director? May she lead congregational singing? May she serve as an usher? What about special music or playing the piano? Would just reading a scripture to the congregation be pushing the envelope? May she perform clerical duties? These would reflect more on the “being in authority” matter.

Ask Her Husband at Home
Why does Paul advocate a wife refrain from questioning and instead ask her husband at home? Would it be inappropriate to ever ask a question in a congregational setting? Would it be indecorous to lean over and quietly ask something of her husband there in Services?

The preferability of asking at home reflects the responsibility of the husband to be the spiritual leader in the home. Asking a question, of and by itself, was not the entire issue. A widow or young person might ask a question in an informal gathering, such as at a Bible Study or Fellowship Gathering. But Paul, in stating what he did, puts more of the responsibility for the husband to become better informed and to be able to reflect the spiritual leadership appropriate to his role in his family. In this too, Paul is showing the same consideration to the husband’s role that he is expecting their wives to show.

How Commentaries Weigh-In

Expositors Bible Commentary: Has this to say regarding1^st Timothy 2:11-12: “The teaching of these two verses is similar to that found in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. There Paul tells the women that they are not allowed to talk out loud in the public services; here he says that they are to “learn in quietness and full submission.” Titus 2:5 suggests that he means a wife is to be submissive to her husband. But it may well have the wider application of “submission to constituted authority, i.e., the officials and regulations of the Church” (Ramsay, quoted in Lock, p. 32).

The attitude of the Greeks toward a women’s place in society was not altogether uniform. Plato gave them practical equality with men. But Aristotle thought their activities should be severely limited, and his views generally prevailed. Plutarch (Moral Essays, p. 785) sounds much the same note as Paul does here. (It may be some of this independent attitude, common in their Hellenistic culture, that saw need for Paul to dampen with clearest admonition.)

The expression “full submission” needs to be treated intelligently. Vine offers this helpful comment: “The injunction is not directed towards a surrender of mind and conscience, or the abandonment of the duty of private judgment; the phrase “with all subjection” is a warning against the usurpation of authority, as, e.g., in the next verse” (p. 45).

Specifically, Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.” Some have even said that the apostle’s prohibition excludes women from teaching Sunday school classes. But he is talking about the public assemblies of the church. Paul speaks appreciatively of the fact that Timothy himself had been taught the right way by his godly mother and grandmother (2Tim 1:5; 3:15). The apostle also writes to Titus that the older women are to train the younger (Titus 2:3-4). Women have always carried the major responsibility for teaching small children, in both home and church school. And what could we have done without them!

The word silent translates en hesychia, exactly the same phrase that is rendered “in quietness” in v. 11. Quietness is an important Christian virtue. Paul was especially opposed to confusion in the public services of the church (1Cor 14:33).” [1] And in 1^st Corinthians 14, that was his major point.

JF&B Commentary [2] says: “… for a woman to speak in public would be an act of independence, as if they were not subject to their husbands…” They also suggest: “… shame would be better translated: indecorous”

A.T. Robertson Commentary: “silence” comparable to disorders caused by speaking in tongues. … women were creating disturbances by their dress (v.28) and now by their speech.   … (i.e., outspokenness) Daughters of Philip were prophetesses.” (Acts 21:8-9)

Matthew Henry: “women did pray and prophesy in assemblies… (1Cor. 11:5) …learning at home puts the onus on the man to remain superior to his wife in spiritual understanding… (it shames the man if she appears superior to him in this area…)”

So, In Summary
When we examine Paul’s overall narrative as it regards the role of women in the Church, we are acquainted with three primary considerations: 1) The disruptiveness of a woman being outspoken, interrupting or taking exception to what a speaker was presenting, 2) the impropriety of a woman in a way discrediting her marital relationship and the obligations to reflect an appropriate submissiveness, and perhaps most importantly, 3) the impropriety of taking a leadership role over men. When these three considerations have been appropriately factored-in, can we say we have complied with the criteria Paul laid down?

The problem is, when religious institutions develop a culture where women are basically allowed no role at all in the congregation. (For that matter, in the WCG culture, and many of the groups developed from that heritage, even the men are compelled into a silence, being allowed no say or service function. It’s all limited to a selected few whose choice for service, typically, will enhance the prestige of the resident overlord.)

Now, Paul’s position doesn’t exclude women from any and all important roles within the Church. What those permissible roles might be are subject to varying opinions, which can prove divisive. Not all agree on what roles are appropriate. But Paul laid a foundation. Taking into account his above three prime considerations, we should be provided with sufficient underlying basis upon which determinations are made as to what service roles are proper.

A Contempt for Women?
Paul has been labelled as a ‘woman hater’ by some who chafe at such restrictions. It can be taken either of two ways from there. Some can take the position that women ought to be allowed more latitude in serving the congregation while others may use Paul’s admonitions as justification for suppressing women to an even greater degree than was ever intended.

It is clear that Paul worked with and appreciated the services of many women in the Church. Consider these passages from Romans chapter 16:

“I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ. Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us. Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me…”

Obviously, there were noteworthy individuals, women, who were of great value in the Church. Regarding Phebe, for her to be attending to Church business, and for Paul to instruct those in Rome to assist her, suggests she was in charge of some activity essential to the Church there. She was obviously very involved also in the personal lives of many, succoring them in some manner. How many like that do we see today? Mary also is commended as a fellow laborer.

Then there were husband / wife teams who at times carried congregations and educated even the ministry. [3] Paul gives special mention to Priscilla (mentioning her first here and in later references) with Aquila her husband.

Orderliness: Next to Godliness!
What Paul has to say regarding the role of women is not to put down women nor to discredit them or exclude them from any service. His admonitions were intended to create an order in the Church, which is consistent with the context in 1^st Corinthians 14: All things being done decently and in order! (v. 40)   He advocates a consistent decorum that promotes order in a Services format. He advocates a woman’s deference toward her husband that promotes order in the marital relationship, (which incidentally illustrates the Church’s relationship with Christ). [4] Thirdly, he advocates a proper role within the congregations’ political structure that promotes order within its educational operations. None of this should be regarded as intending to degrade anyone, nor should any man use it as justification for a contemptuous attitude of others.

May the Spirit of God guide us all in our acceptance of the assignments of women to various appropriate service functions in the Church, recognizing that not all see things identically. We all can carry ‘baggage’ as did the first century Jewish contingent. As we seek to comply with Paul’s admonitions, we should do so without creating confusion or discord of a different sort, nor create any divisive spirit within the congregations. When the Spirit of God inspires genuine enthusiasm in anyone, man, woman, or youth, [5] woe be to that individual who would in any way suppress that enthusiasm!                &

———————————————————————–
Reprinted with permission from: Golden Sheaves
https://www.goldensheaves.org/
———————————————————————–

[1] Expositor’s Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:1 Timothy/Exposition of 1 Timothy/V. Worship and Conduct (2:1-3:16)/C. Women (2:9-15), Book Version: 4.0.2

[2] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Bible Commentary
[3] 1^st Cor. 4:6-9 Apollos, an eloquent speaker, later alluded to as an apostle, was instructed more adequately in the Faith by this couple. Acts 18:24-26.

[4] Ephesians 5:22-33.

[5] Acts 2:17

Iron Sharpening Iron In regard to: Let Your Women KEEP SILENCE Article by Rich Traver Comments by Laura Lee (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Your article brought up many great points, but it also missed a few. As a woman who teaches all people who are interested, I want to say I have never felt the urge to get up in front of many people and speak, however if a woman wants to do that, I sincerely hope she is able to find a congregation who will accept that. In today’s society it would be very hard for any man or woman to teach another man anything he did not want to learn or even listen to. The basic problem that most men have to one degree or the other is ego and an attitude that women are inferior to them. If you are a man or a woman with God’s Holy Spirit in you, any of these and other attitudes towards each other should not exist. We are all equal in Christ. With that said, it was not my idea to start a newsletter in the first place. I will give that credit to my husband Darwin. I wrote a letter to the editor of a small newsletter, and they decided to turn it into an article. We later parted ways over my grammar. They wanted me to write in a third person as if I did not exist and I wanted to be a real person as in one of God’s children. One who could be real in what I say to others and to show I am just like every other person, flaws, and all. Everything I have learned in regard to putting a newsletter together and creating a website is all self-taught as I have never taken any formal classes to learn these things as most can probably see by the flaws. I also flunked typing class in high school. I can type accurately but probably only at the rate of 10 to 20 words a minute although I have gotten a little faster over time. I thank God every day for scanners and copy and paste settings. Getting back to the newsletter, Darwin came to me one day out of the blue in 2000 and said you should start a church newsletter. My reaction was a large one where I said, “NO, NO, NO”. Then it ate on me, and I went back and said, “Yes I will do it.” So together we put out a 24-page newsletter in hard copy six times a year for almost nine years. Our website got hacked by the Chinese in late 2009 and we had no backup copies. The website had to be taken down. I was tired and we were out of money to print it anymore, so it was over. I actually never thought we would start it up again. A lot happens in over a decade, Biden moved into the White House, many people we worked with on the first newsletter either retired from church work or died. Things were depressing for a few weeks and then one morning I woke up and said, “I have to re-start the newsletter.” We had not planned to re-start the newsletter but realized it was time to bring people back together knowing there would be trying times ahead of us. For all women reading this newsletter, I would encourage you to write and send articles when you have them. We need the input of all of God’s people so that we may all learn and stick close to God in these latter days. I have some other articles we have printed which go with this one. The following go into more detail than this one does in some places. The King James Bible makes it look like Junia was a man, but there is evidence that Junia was a woman apostle. All three articles are by Dianne D. McDonnell of Arlington, Texas. Those articles can be found at: Junia, a Woman Apostle A Church Without Women Paul and Women Teachers: Understanding 1 Timothy, Chapters 1 & 2

Iron Sharpening Iron
In regard to: Let Your Women KEEP SILENCE
Article by Rich Traver
Comments by Laura Lee (Bismarck, North Dakota)

Your article brought up many great points, but it also missed a few.

As a woman who teaches all people who are interested, I want to say I have never felt the urge to get up in front of many people and speak, however if a woman wants to do that, I sincerely hope she is able to find a congregation who will accept that. In today’s society it would be very hard for any man or woman to teach another man anything he did not want to learn or even listen to. The basic problem that most men have to one degree or the other is ego and an attitude that women are inferior to them. If you are a man or a woman with God’s Holy Spirit in you, any of these and other attitudes towards each other should not exist. We are all equal in Christ.

With that said, it was not my idea to start a newsletter in the first place. I will give that credit to my husband Darwin. I wrote a letter to the editor of a small newsletter, and they decided to turn it into an article. We later parted ways over my grammar. They wanted me to write in a third person as if I did not exist and I wanted to be a real person as in one of God’s children. One who could be real in what I say to others and to show I am just like every other person, flaws, and all. Everything I have learned in regard to putting a newsletter together and creating a website is all self-taught as I have never taken any formal classes to learn these things as most can probably see by the flaws. I also flunked typing class in high school. I can type accurately but probably only at the rate of 10 to 20 words a minute although I have gotten a little faster over time. I thank God every day for scanners and copy and paste settings.

Getting back to the newsletter, Darwin came to me one day out of the blue in 2000 and said you should start a church newsletter. My reaction was a large one where I said, “NO, NO, NO”. Then it ate on me, and I went back and said, “Yes I will do it.” So together we put out a 24-page newsletter in hard copy six times a year for almost nine years. Our website got hacked by the Chinese in late 2009 and we had no backup copies. The website had to be taken down. I was tired and we were out of money to print it anymore, so it was over. I actually never thought we would start it up again.

A lot happens in over a decade, Biden moved into the White House, many people we worked with on the first newsletter either retired from church work or died. Things were depressing for a few weeks and then one morning I woke up and said, “I have to re-start the newsletter.” We had not planned to re-start the newsletter but realized it was time to bring people back together knowing there would be trying times ahead of us.

For all women reading this newsletter, I would encourage you to write and send articles when you have them. We need the input of all of God’s people so that we may all learn and stick close to God in these latter days.

I have some other articles we have printed which go with this one. The following go into more detail than this one does in some places. The King James Bible makes it look like Junia was a man, but there is evidence that Junia was a woman apostle. All three articles are by Dianne D. McDonnell of Arlington, Texas. Those articles can be found at:

Junia, a Woman Apostle

A Church Without Women

Paul and Women Teachers: Understanding 1 Timothy, Chapters 1 & 2

Iron Sharpening Iron In regard to: Let Your Women KEEP SILENCE Article by Rich Traver Comments by Laura Lee (Bismarck, North Dakota)
I was going to skip commenting on the following from your article, but I changed my mind because I think this point is something we all need to understand. From Rich Traver’s Article: “But – to be under obedience, as also saith the law – This is a reference to Genesis 3:16: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. From this it is evident that it was the disorderly and disobedient that the apostle had in view; and not any of those on whom God had poured out his Spirit.” The two verses in question here are the following: 1Co 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. Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Some Bibles while reading 1 Corinthians 14:34 refers you to Genesis 3:16 so this is where people are getting the idea that Genesis 3:16 is a law of God. I did find that marginal note in the 1611 Edition of the King James Bible and I am sure it is probably in other Bible versions. The problem with this reference to Genesis 3:16 is that Genesis 3:16 in not a law of God. Genesis 3:16 is a consequence of sin. See the following article for more information on Genesis 3:16: 5 Reasons Genesis 3:16 is Not a Model for Christian Marriage 5 Reasons Genesis 3:16: Church of God, Bismarck! The “New” Church of God Messenger (church-of-god-bismarck.org) Read all of the “Iron Sharpening Irons” attached also. If we go back and read 1 Corinthians 14:34 but in context of what is being said: 1Co 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. 1Co 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. 1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? The Book of 1 Corinthians is one of 13 or 14 letters that Paul wrote. Together, these letters form a major part of the New Testament (the books that the first Christians wrote). (From Google) Here is the thing with these verses and you can go back further in 1 Corinthians, but I will show you with three verses what is going on here. The Corinthian Church writes: 1Co 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. 1Co 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. Paul writes: 1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 1 Corinthians is a letter that the Corinthian Church wrote, and Paul is responding to. It is the Corinthian Church that is saying that women need to keep silence and that it is not permitted under the law. Paul then pushes back on what they said by asking them if the word of God came only to them and no one else. In other words, “are you God that you make the law?” Read the following from: https://www.clintbyars.com/blog/2018/1/1/should-women-remain-silent-in-the-church We see even earlier from 1 Corinthians 7:1 that Paul is responding to a letter the Corinthian church sent him. There is actually a quotation mark in the original language called an eta before 1 Corinthians 14:34, signifying that his next few sentences are a quotation from the letter they sent him. This is what their letter said… 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. 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. And then this is Paul’s response… *36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?* It’s easy to miss with a casual reading of the Bible without understanding that he’s responding to their statements and questions. If you read all of 1 Corinthians you see that he goes back and forth from reading what they wrote to him and his response to them, it just looks like it all runs together. We see in v36 that Paul is questioning their idea that women should remain silent. He actually calls them out for making this up by asking them if God’s Word came from them. It’s a way of saying, who made you God? Or are you writing your own scripture? And now we know why it was hard to understand Paul. It is because he quoted what other people sent to him in letters and then he responded to it. It makes a big, major, huge difference in how we understand scripture and Paul in particular. 2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Iron Sharpening Iron
In regard to: Let Your Women KEEP SILENCE
Article by Rich Traver
Comments by Laura Lee (Bismarck, North Dakota)

I was going to skip commenting on the following from your article, but I changed my mind because I think this point is something we all need to understand.

From Rich Traver’s Article:
“But – to be under obedience, as also saith the law – This is a reference to Genesis 3:16: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. From this it is evident that it was the disorderly and disobedient that the apostle had in view; and not any of those on whom God had poured out his Spirit.”

The two verses in question here are the following:

1Co 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.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Some Bibles while reading 1 Corinthians 14:34 refers you to Genesis 3:16 so this is where people are getting the idea that Genesis 3:16 is a law of God. I did find that marginal note in the 1611 Edition of the King James Bible and I am sure it is probably in other Bible versions.

The problem with this reference to Genesis 3:16 is that Genesis 3:16 in not a law of God. Genesis 3:16 is a consequence of sin.

See the following article for more information on Genesis 3:16:
5 Reasons Genesis 3:16 is Not a Model for Christian Marriage
5 Reasons Genesis 3:16: Church of God, Bismarck! The “New” Church of God Messenger (church-of-god-bismarck.org)

Read all of the “Iron Sharpening Irons” attached also.

If we go back and read 1 Corinthians 14:34 but in context of what is being said:

1Co 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. 1Co 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. 1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

The Book of 1 Corinthians is one of 13 or 14 letters that Paul wrote. Together, these letters form a major part of the New Testament (the books that the first Christians wrote). (From Google)

Here is the thing with these verses and you can go back further in 1 Corinthians, but I will show you with three verses what is going on here.

The Corinthian Church writes:
1Co 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. 1Co 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.

Paul writes:
1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

1 Corinthians is a letter that the Corinthian Church wrote, and Paul is responding to.

It is the Corinthian Church that is saying that women need to keep silence and that it is not permitted under the law. Paul then pushes back on what they said by asking them if the word of God came only to them and no one else. In other words, “are you God that you make the law?”

Read the following from:
https://www.clintbyars.com/blog/2018/1/1/should-women-remain-silent-in-the-church

We see even earlier from 1 Corinthians 7:1 that Paul is responding to a letter the Corinthian church sent him. There is actually a quotation mark in the original language called an eta before 1 Corinthians 14:34, signifying that his next few sentences are a quotation from the letter they sent him.

This is what their letter said…
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. 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.

And then this is Paul’s response…
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

It’s easy to miss with a casual reading of the Bible without understanding that he’s responding to their statements and questions. If you read all of 1 Corinthians you see that he goes back and forth from reading what they wrote to him and his response to them, it just looks like it all runs together.

We see in v36 that Paul is questioning their idea that women should remain silent. He actually calls them out for making this up by asking them if God’s Word came from them. It’s a way of saying, who made you God? Or are you writing your own scripture?

And now we know why it was hard to understand Paul. It is because he quoted what other people sent to him in letters and then he responded to it. It makes a big, major, huge difference in how we understand scripture and Paul in particular.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Iron Sharpening Iron In regard to: Let Your Women KEEP SILENCE Article by Rich Traver Comments by Rich Traver (Clifton, Colorado)
Regarding the feedback on the Women Keeping Silence matter, it’s apparent that many who have grown up in the religious culture of the time aren’t aware of the situations being addressed. It was NOT that women took to the podium and gave the sermons. That isn’t what was happening at all. Nor is the “authority issue” in the other reference addressing the same thing. Blending the two passages together allows a platform for a conclusion not originally intended. Flavoring the matter is the anti-woman polarization that existed in the Phariseean approach, where women weren’t allowed to congregate with men in the Synagogue. If that were appropriate, the early Church would have perpetuated it. That they didn’t shows some understanding on their part. Paul’s admonition reflected more the husband/wife relationship. Ask at home, rather than interrupting the speaker, which is more what was happening. I expect we would make the same judgment today if it were a problem. But then, there’s the unmarried women consideration. Are they exempt from Paul’s instruction? They don’t HAVE husbands. Seasoned widows might have a better spiritual condition than the younger wives. What of them? In fact, they might be more spiritually mature and knowledgeable than many husbands. Are they to be shunted aside merely for ‘gender considerations’? I asked someone who is negative toward women participating in a service if it would be appropriate for a woman to, say, lead a choir? That does involve a certain amount of “authority” over the men in the choir. He wouldn’t answer because of the obvious answer. What about ‘signing’, playing the piano or leading in study? I recall an incident at the Feast in Vail, Colorado in 1980. There was a woman from the Denver congregation who was leading the Feast Choir. Some apparently saw them in rehearsal and had some heartburn with that, so they had to ‘replace’ her with a man. Well, the man wasn’t anywhere near as good as that woman, and it showed in the performances. But they thought it was sooo Biblical to crap on a trained professional over one who wasn’t! (Ron Kelly was there that year, and likely agreed with the action!) Can a woman be Church Treasurer, organize events, sing special music, sing out in services in congregational singing? Can she speak out when there’s a prayer request or an update on someone’s need? We have a local group where the attending women can’t even comment in a Bible Study, except possibly thru her husband (if he is there and if she has one.) Can and should a woman ‘succor’ the afflicted, and lead others (men included) in addressing such needs? In our old culture, I expect they’d see need to replace her. (Read Romans 16:1-2). This lady was conducting a service to others where and she could use help, which Paul recommended she be given. The approach of some would be to push her aside and take over. Not that they could do her job any better.

Iron Sharpening Iron
In regard to: Let Your Women KEEP SILENCE
Article by Rich Traver
Comments by Rich Traver (Clifton, Colorado)

Regarding the feedback on the Women Keeping Silence matter, it’s apparent that many who have grown up in the religious culture of the time aren’t aware of the situations being addressed. It was NOT that women took to the podium and gave the sermons. That isn’t what was happening at all. Nor is the “authority issue” in the other reference addressing the same thing. Blending the two passages together allows a platform for a conclusion not originally intended. Flavoring the matter is the anti-woman polarization that existed in the Phariseean approach, where women weren’t allowed to congregate with men in the Synagogue.

If that were appropriate, the early Church would have perpetuated it. That they didn’t shows some understanding on their part.

Paul’s admonition reflected more the husband/wife relationship. Ask at home, rather than interrupting the speaker, which is more what was happening. I expect we would make the same judgment today if it were a problem.

But then, there’s the unmarried women consideration. Are they exempt from Paul’s instruction? They don’t HAVE husbands. Seasoned widows might have a better spiritual condition than the younger wives. What of them? In fact, they might be more spiritually mature and knowledgeable than many husbands. Are they to be shunted aside merely for ‘gender considerations’?

I asked someone who is negative toward women participating in a service if it would be appropriate for a woman to, say, lead a choir? That does involve a certain amount of “authority” over the men in the choir. He wouldn’t answer because of the obvious answer. What about ‘signing’, playing the piano or leading in study?

I recall an incident at the Feast in Vail, Colorado in 1980. There was a woman from the Denver congregation who was leading the Feast Choir. Some apparently saw them in rehearsal and had some heartburn with that, so they had to ‘replace’ her with a man. Well, the man wasn’t anywhere near as good as that woman, and it showed in the performances. But they thought it was sooo Biblical to crap on a trained professional over one who wasn’t! (Ron Kelly was there that year, and likely agreed with the action!)

Can a woman be Church Treasurer, organize events, sing special music, sing out in services in congregational singing? Can she speak out when there’s a prayer request or an update on someone’s need? We have a local group where the attending women can’t even comment in a Bible Study, except possibly thru her husband (if he is there and if she has one.) Can and should a woman ‘succor’ the afflicted, and lead others (men included) in addressing such needs? In our old culture, I expect they’d see need to replace her. (Read Romans 16:1-2). This lady was conducting a service to others where and she could use help, which Paul recommended she be given. The approach of some would be to push her aside and take over. Not that they could do her job any better.

Iron Sharpening Iron In regard to: Let Your Women KEEP SILENCE Article by Rich Traver Comments by Laura Lee (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Rich Traver writes: Regarding the feedback on the Women Keeping Silence matter, it’s apparent that many who have grown up in the religious culture of the time aren’t aware of the situations being addressed. It was NOT that women took to the podium and gave the sermons. That isn’t what was happening at all. Nor is the “authority issue” in the other reference addressing the same thing. Blending the two passages together allows a platform for a conclusion not originally intended. Flavoring the matter is the anti-woman polarization that existed in the Phariseean approach, where women weren’t allowed to congregate with men in the Synagogue. If that were appropriate, the early Church would have perpetuated it. That they didn’t shows some understanding on their part. Laura Lee writes: The reason for calling it the Court of the Women was that, although it served both men and women equally, during the Simchat Beit Hashoeva (Water Drawing Festival) special balconies were installed for the women to stand upon. The gemara in Tractate Sukkah states that “initially, women would stand on the inside of the Court of the Women, closer to the Sanctuary to the west, and the men were on the outside in the courtyard and on the rampart. And they would come to conduct themselves with inappropriate levity in each other’s company, as the men needed to enter closer to the altar when the offerings were being sacrificed and as a result they would mingle with the women. Therefore, the Sages instituted that the women should sit on the outside and the men on the inside, and still they would come to conduct themselves with inappropriate levity. Therefore, they instituted a ruling, in the interest of complete separation, that the women would sit above and the men below” (Sukkah 51b). From: Court of the Women – Wikipedia There are a variety of reasons in Judaism that are used to justify gender separation to varying degrees. In Pirkei Avot 1:5, Yosi ben Yochanan says that a man who spends too much time talking to women, even his wife, neglects the study of Torah and will inherit gehinnom.^[1] Chapter 152 of Kitzur Shulchan Aruch details a series of laws forbidding interaction between persons of the opposite sex who are not married or closely related.^[2] Some of the prohibitions include negiah (physical contact), yichud (isolation with members of the opposite sex), staring at women or any of their body parts or attire, or conversation for pleasure. From: Gender separation in Judaism – Wikipedia It seems that one of the reasons for the separation of men and women in the temple had nothing to do with the women, but with the lust of men. Court of the Women according to Josephus[edit] According to the historian Flavius Josephus in his book The Wars of the Jews (Book 5, chapter 5), the Court of the Women had three gates, one from every direction. In his book “Against Apion” (Book 5, chapter 8), the Court of the Women was described as a courtyard that allowed both sexes to mix: “Into the first court everybody was allowed to go, even foreigners, and none but women, during their courses, were prohibited to pass through it; all the Jews went into the second court, as well as their wives, when they were free from all uncleanness; into the third court (The Court of the Israelites) went in the Jewish men, when they were clean and purified. From: Court of the Women – Wikipedia This all sort of blows your theory of men and women not being allowed to congregate in the temple/synagogue. In something else I read, it goes something like this: They wanted men to concentrate on the temple service so they separated them from the women, so the men could not see the women at all. However, the women were allowed to see the men. Men apparently have a well-known problem with lust and before you say “no” to that please remember King David who wanted Bathsheba so badly that he had her husband killed. To say that all Pharisees are bad people would be the equivalent of saying all men are bad people. Each group has their good and their bad, so don’t blame this separation solely on Pharisees, it is a man problem whether Pharisee or not. Rich states: Flavoring the matter is the anti-woman polarization that existed in the Phariseean approach, where women weren’t allowed to congregate with men in the Synagogue. It seems that this view is the opposite of the original view. Much of the reason for the separation of men and women in the temple was due to the lust of men. In order to get the men to focus on the service at hand they were separated from the women to keep them from looking at or lusting after women. You don’t state which scriptures were being blended to come to a wrong conclusion, but I believe most people blend 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, Timothy 2:11-15 and Genesis 3:16. And here is the problem with all three of these scriptures which is not a Phariseean problem but more of a men problem. Men use these three scriptures and a few others to keep all women from using their God given spiritual gifts within a church setting. They are used to show women are inferior to men when they are not. They are used to show that men have rulership over women when they do not. In other words, women are property to men and that comes to light very clearly if you have ever spent any time in a relationship with an abusive husband or boyfriend. Rich Traver writes: Paul’s admonition reflected more the husband/wife relationship. Ask at home, rather than interrupting the speaker, which is more what was happening. I expect we would make the same judgment today if it were a problem. But then, there’s the unmarried women consideration. Are they exempt from Paul’s instruction? They don’t HAVE husbands. Seasoned widows might have a better spiritual condition than the younger wives. What of them? In fact, they might be more spiritually mature and knowledgeable than many husbands. Are they to be shunted aside merely for ‘gender considerations’? Laura Lee writes: The problem here is that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was not Paul’s instruction to anyone. These two verses are a quote from a letter that the Corinthian church wrote to Paul and Paul disputed it in verse 36. Rich Traver writes: I asked someone who is negative toward women participating in a service if it would be appropriate for a woman to, say, lead a choir? That does involve a certain amount of “authority” over the men in the choir. He wouldn’t answer because of the obvious answer. What about ‘signing’, playing the piano, or leading in study? Laura Lee writes: I am not surprised you got no response. Generally, men who are opposed to women doing anything in church make themselves look like fools if they respond and can continue to hold on to their utopian world where men are kings and women are slave girls waiting on them hand and foot if they only keep their mouth shut especially in front of other men where is found a mixed bag where some treat women as equals and others do not. Rich Traver writes: I recall an incident at the Feast in Vail, Colorado in 1980. There was a woman from the Denver congregation who was leading the Feast Choir. Some apparently saw them in rehearsal and had some heartburn with that, so they had to ‘replace’ her with a man. Well, the man wasn’t anywhere near as good as that woman, and it showed in the performances. But they thought it was sooo Biblical to crap on a trained professional over one who wasn’t! (Ron Kelly was there that year, and likely agreed with the action!) Laura Lee writes: Do you yet see how cruel some men are to women? Next time you see this happen tell the men to take “Pepto Bismol” for their heartburn and they will eventually get over the fact that women can do some things better or equal to men. Rich Traver writes: Can a woman be Church Treasurer, organize events, sing special music, sing out in services in congregational singing? Can she speak out when there’s a prayer request or an update on someone’s need? We have a local group where the attending women can’t even comment in a Bible Study, except possibly thru her husband (if he is there and if she has one.) Can and should a woman ‘succor’ the afflicted, and lead others (men included) in addressing such needs? In our old culture, I expect they’d see need to replace her. (Read Romans 16:1-2). This lady was conducting a service to others where and she could use help, which Paul recommended she be given. The approach of some would be to push her aside and take over. Not that they could do her job any better. Laura Lee writes: Yes, it is perfectly fine for women to do all those things and more according to Christ. Eph 4:11 And he (Christ) gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: If you are a man and you get heartburn if a woman preaches whether in your home or from a pulpit perhaps you should ask yourself a better question. “Is she speaking the truth or is she speaking lies?” If she is speaking truth from the Bible, listen to her. If she is teaching lies that can’t be found in the Bible dismiss her the same as you would a man in the same position who is speaking lies. The teachers, man or woman who are teaching truth from the Bible are doing it for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry and for the edifying of the body of Christ. Parts of what you wrote here were hard to understand and some were confusing. So, if I did not address your issues, it was because I found them confusing or not clear as to what you were saying. Below I will leave some items that cause some to get heartburn. If you don’t believe me, look it up. Phebe was a minister/deacon. Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: Rom 16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. (King James Version) That word servant is Strong’s #1249. If it means minister/deacon for men then it means the same for a woman. διάκονος 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. Rom 16:1 And I commend you to Phebe our sister—being a ministrant of the assembly that is in Cenchrea— Rom 16:2 that ye may receive her in the Lord, as doth become saints, and may assist her in whatever matter she may have need of you—for she also became a leader of many, and of myself. (Young’s Literal Translation) Rom 16:1 But I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is minister of the assembly which is in Cenchrea; Rom 16:2 that ye may receive her in the Lord worthily of saints, and that ye may assist her in whatever matter she has need of you; for she also has been a helper of many, and of myself. (Darby) Rom 16:1 And I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church, that is in Cenchrae: Rom 16:2 That you receive her in the Lord as becometh saints and that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you. For she also hath assisted many, and myself also. (Douay-Rheims Bible) Romans 16:1 I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is a deaconess of the church that is in Cenchrea, 2 that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of saints, and that you aid her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she has been a helper of many, of myself also. (Codex Sinaiticus) Also notice verse two where she also taught, directed or helped Paul in her leadership capacity, and he had not one problem with that. So, guys get rid of your heartburn meds and believe the Bible at long last. Women have just as much of a right to the gifts of the spirit as men do. We are all equal in Christ.

Iron Sharpening Iron
In regard to: Let Your Women KEEP SILENCE
Article by Rich Traver
Comments by Laura Lee (Bismarck, North Dakota)

Rich Traver writes:
Regarding the feedback on the Women Keeping Silence matter, it’s apparent that many who have grown up in the religious culture of the time aren’t aware of the situations being addressed. It was NOT that women took to the podium and gave the sermons. That isn’t what was happening at all. Nor is the “authority issue” in the other reference addressing the same thing. Blending the two passages together allows a platform for a conclusion not originally intended. Flavoring the matter is the anti-woman polarization that existed in the Phariseean approach, where women weren’t allowed to congregate with men in the Synagogue.

If that were appropriate, the early Church would have perpetuated it. That they didn’t shows some understanding on their part.

Laura Lee writes:
The reason for calling it the Court of the Women was that, although it served both men and women equally, during the Simchat Beit Hashoeva (Water Drawing Festival) special balconies were installed for the women to stand upon. The gemara in Tractate Sukkah states that “initially, women would stand on the inside of the Court of the Women, closer to the Sanctuary to the west, and the men were on the outside in the courtyard and on the rampart. And they would come to conduct themselves with inappropriate levity in each other’s company, as the men needed to enter closer to the altar when the offerings were being sacrificed and as a result they would mingle with the women. Therefore, the Sages instituted that the women should sit on the outside and the men on the inside, and still they would come to conduct themselves with inappropriate levity. Therefore, they instituted a ruling, in the interest of complete separation, that the women would sit above and the men below” (Sukkah 51b).

From: Court of the Women – Wikipedia

There are a variety of reasons in Judaism that are used to justify gender separation to varying degrees.

In Pirkei Avot 1:5, Yosi ben Yochanan says that a man who spends too much time talking to women, even his wife, neglects the study of Torah and will inherit gehinnom.^[1]

Chapter 152 of Kitzur Shulchan Aruch details a series of laws forbidding interaction between persons of the opposite sex who are not married or closely related.^[2] Some of the prohibitions include negiah (physical contact), yichud (isolation with members of the opposite sex), staring at women or any of their body parts or attire, or conversation for pleasure.

From: Gender separation in Judaism – Wikipedia

It seems that one of the reasons for the separation of men and women in the temple had nothing to do with the women, but with the lust of men.

Court of the Women according to Josephus[edit]
According to the historian Flavius Josephus in his book The Wars of the Jews (Book 5, chapter 5), the Court of the Women had three gates, one from every direction. In his book “Against Apion” (Book 5, chapter 8), the Court of the Women was described as a courtyard that allowed both sexes to mix:

“Into the first court everybody was allowed to go, even foreigners, and none but women, during their courses, were prohibited to pass through it; all the Jews went into the second court, as well as their wives, when they were free from all uncleanness; into the third court (The Court of the Israelites) went in the Jewish men, when they were clean and purified.

From: Court of the Women – Wikipedia

This all sort of blows your theory of men and women not being allowed to congregate in the temple/synagogue.

In something else I read, it goes something like this: They wanted men to concentrate on the temple service so they separated them from the women, so the men could not see the women at all. However, the women were allowed to see the men. Men apparently have a well-known problem with lust and before you say “no” to that please remember King David who wanted Bathsheba so badly that he had her husband killed.

To say that all Pharisees are bad people would be the equivalent of saying all men are bad people. Each group has their good and their bad, so don’t blame this separation solely on Pharisees, it is a man problem whether Pharisee or not.

Rich states:
Flavoring the matter is the anti-woman polarization that existed in the Phariseean approach, where women weren’t allowed to congregate with men in the Synagogue.

It seems that this view is the opposite of the original view. Much of the reason for the separation of men and women in the temple was due to the lust of men. In order to get the men to focus on the service at hand they were separated from the women to keep them from looking at or lusting after women.

You don’t state which scriptures were being blended to come to a wrong conclusion, but I believe most people blend 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, Timothy 2:11-15 and Genesis 3:16. And here is the problem with all three of these scriptures which is not a Phariseean problem but more of a men problem. Men use these three scriptures and a few others to keep all women from using their God given spiritual gifts within a church setting. They are used to show women are inferior to men when they are not. They are used to show that men have rulership over women when they do not. In other words, women are property to men and that comes to light very clearly if you have ever spent any time in a relationship with an abusive husband or boyfriend.

Rich Traver writes:
Paul’s admonition reflected more the husband/wife relationship. Ask at home, rather than interrupting the speaker, which is more what was happening. I expect we would make the same judgment today if it were a problem.

But then, there’s the unmarried women consideration. Are they exempt from Paul’s instruction? They don’t HAVE husbands. Seasoned widows might have a better spiritual condition than the younger wives. What of them? In fact, they might be more spiritually mature and knowledgeable than many husbands. Are they to be shunted aside merely for ‘gender considerations’?

Laura Lee writes:
The problem here is that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was not Paul’s instruction to anyone. These two verses are a quote from a letter that the Corinthian church wrote to Paul and Paul disputed it in verse 36.

Rich Traver writes:
I asked someone who is negative toward women participating in a service if it would be appropriate for a woman to, say, lead a choir? That does involve a certain amount of “authority” over the men in the choir. He wouldn’t answer because of the obvious answer. What about ‘signing’, playing the piano, or leading in study?

Laura Lee writes:
I am not surprised you got no response. Generally, men who are opposed to women doing anything in church make themselves look like fools if they respond and can continue to hold on to their utopian world where men are kings and women are slave girls waiting on them hand and foot if they only keep their mouth shut especially in front of other men where is found a mixed bag where some treat women as equals and others do not.

Rich Traver writes:
I recall an incident at the Feast in Vail, Colorado in 1980. There was a woman from the Denver congregation who was leading the Feast Choir. Some apparently saw them in rehearsal and had some heartburn with that, so they had to ‘replace’ her with a man. Well, the man wasn’t anywhere near as good as that woman, and it showed in the performances. But they thought it was sooo Biblical to crap on a trained professional over one who wasn’t! (Ron Kelly was there that year, and likely agreed with the action!)

Laura Lee writes:
Do you yet see how cruel some men are to women? Next time you see this happen tell the men to take “Pepto Bismol” for their heartburn and they will eventually get over the fact that women can do some things better or equal to men.

Rich Traver writes:
Can a woman be Church Treasurer, organize events, sing special music, sing out in services in congregational singing? Can she speak out when there’s a prayer request or an update on someone’s need? We have a local group where the attending women can’t even comment in a Bible Study, except possibly thru her husband (if he is there and if she has one.) Can and should a woman ‘succor’ the afflicted, and lead others (men included) in addressing such needs? In our old culture, I expect they’d see need to replace her. (Read Romans 16:1-2). This lady was conducting a service to others where and she could use help, which Paul recommended she be given. The approach of some would be to push her aside and take over. Not that they could do her job any better.

Laura Lee writes:
Yes, it is perfectly fine for women to do all those things and more according to Christ.

Eph 4:11 And he (Christ) gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

If you are a man and you get heartburn if a woman preaches whether in your home or from a pulpit perhaps you should ask yourself a better question. “Is she speaking the truth or is she speaking lies?” If she is speaking truth from the Bible, listen to her. If she is teaching lies that can’t be found in the Bible dismiss her the same as you would a man in the same position who is speaking lies. The teachers, man or woman who are teaching truth from the Bible are doing it for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry and for the edifying of the body of Christ.

Parts of what you wrote here were hard to understand and some were confusing. So, if I did not address your issues, it was because I found them confusing or not clear as to what you were saying.

Below I will leave some items that cause some to get heartburn. If you don’t believe me, look it up. Phebe was a minister/deacon.

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: Rom 16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. (King James Version)

That word servant is Strong’s #1249. If it means minister/deacon for men then it means the same for a woman.

διάκονος
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.

Rom 16:1 And I commend you to Phebe our sister—being a ministrant of the assembly that is in Cenchrea— Rom 16:2 that ye may receive her in the Lord, as doth become saints, and may assist her in whatever matter she may have need of you—for she also became a leader of many, and of myself. (Young’s Literal Translation)

Rom 16:1 But I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is minister of the assembly which is in Cenchrea; Rom 16:2 that ye may receive her in the Lord worthily of saints, and that ye may assist her in whatever matter she has need of you; for *she* also has been a helper of many, and of myself. (Darby)

Rom 16:1 And I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church, that is in Cenchrae: Rom 16:2 That you receive her in the Lord as becometh saints and that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you. For she also hath assisted many, and myself also. (Douay-Rheims Bible)

Romans 16:1 I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is a deaconess of the church that is in Cenchrea, 2 that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of saints, and that you aid her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she has been a helper of many, of myself also. (Codex Sinaiticus)

Also notice verse two where she also taught, directed or helped Paul in her leadership capacity, and he had not one problem with that. So, guys get rid of your heartburn meds and believe the Bible at long last. Women have just as much of a right to the gifts of the spirit as men do. We are all equal in Christ.

Holy Days 2026
Passover (Observed at Sunset the Evening Before.)	April 2, 2026
Passover/Unleavened Bread	April 2-8, 2026
Pentecost	May 22, 2026
Trumpets	September 12, 2026
Atonement	September 21, 2026
Tabernacles	September 26 to October 2, 2026
Last Great Day	October 3, 2026

Random Articles

Leave a Reply Cancel reply