It appears to me we Christians often times choose scriptures that fit our traditions and leave others out, sorta like going to Luby's for lunch. Notice the following:

1 Cor. 14:33-35, "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." We have no trouble fitting that into our paradigm. But looka here. Go up just a few verses and notice this:

1 Cor. 14:26, "What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church."

Can anyone explain the difference? Someone added the following:

"As in all the corporate dynamic churches that are really growing, members who are not on payroll must remain silent. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission because that's the way things are. If they want to inquire about something, they should keep it to themselves, for it is disgraceful for non-professionals to speak in church (and the senior pastor doesn't have time for this kind of thing anyway)."

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

Answers

In those days women were not educated.They did not go to school.Only males recieved an education.In the church services women who did not understand what was being taught would ask questions and interupt the service.Paul in Corinthians was telling the women to wait and ask their husbands at home rather than disturb the meeting.It was not saying that women could not speak in Church.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

Jim: Could you please place in your answer the scripture that tells us the women were interrupting the services (assemblies) in Corith? Thanks

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

1. In 1 Corinthians 14:34 where women are told not to "speak" in the church, the word for "speak" is laleo. This is not the usual word for speak in the New Testament. Lego is the usual word for speak. Lego lays emphasis on the CONTENT of what is being said, while laleo lays emphasis on something about the MANNER in which it is said. Laleo is used consistently (28 times) all the way through chapters 12, 13 and 14 with regard to tongues and prophecy.

Women were not to speak -- laleo -- in the church. This is so different than saying that a woman is not to speak -- lego -- (communicate) in the church. She is not to laleo (speak by way of tongues or prophecy) in the church. In that regard she is to keep SILENCE.

In verse 28, even men were told to be silent -- if there was no one to interpret their tongues. So women are told to keep silence altogether in regard to their gift of prophecy or tongues. This IS the context in this passage, and thus it should be understood and handled.

What does that mean to the church today? I don't believe that tongues and prophecy are authorized for the church today. As chapter 13 so clearly shows, tongues, prophecy and knowledge -- which were in part -- were to be done away when that which was complete arrived. But though tongues and prophecy and knowledge are done away, their closest equivalent in the church today is preaching and teaching. Women are not to engage in preaching and teaching today, any more than they were to prophecy or speak in tongues in the assembly in Bible times. This agrees with I Timothy 2:12 where women are not to be teachers in the assembly.

2. As to the rest of the puzzling passage in 1 Corinthians 12:35 about "learning" anything, her option for learning is described as "asking" her husband at home. First, this assumes she has a husband, and then it looks at her METHOD of learning. The word for "ask" is not the ordinary word for ask (erotao). It is the intensified form of the word (eperotao). This word, eperotao, does not mean to merely ask. It means to grill. To question repeatedly. To demand. In this context, it implies a manipulative form of questioning. In the previous verse, the woman was not to teach (laleo) the congregation with tongues and prophecy, and in this verse, she was not to try to manipulate the teaching with QUESTIONING (eperotao) designed to accomplish the same thing. The thought is, if she cannot be the teacher of the group, she is not to usurp the office of teacher by manipulating the teaching by (eperotao) questions. If she wants to ask manipulative questions, let her do it to her husband at home, because it is a "shame" (aiskros) for a woman to speak (laleo -- referring to her MANNER of speaking) in the church.

Conclusion: Women were and are free to speak (lego) in the church. God never squelched their communication. Supervision is another matter. Laleo-ing was left to the men in the assembly. And even they were prohibited in certain circumstances (as when there was no interpreter).

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

It seems that again. as Nelta, pointed out people are leaving some scripture out... this is true. For example Bro. James wrongly asserts that tongues have passed away, which is biblically inacurate, and is an assumption based on his personal hereneutic. Then again, are women to keep silent in the church? What is Paul's intent on the matter? Can a woman pray in church or teach in church? As Jim Staton brought out we must also look at the historical background as well to determine the intent.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

I always wondered: Why would God spend so much time inspiring men like Paul to write at length about the proper usage of spiritual gifts, when he knew full well that by the time all the writings were assembled into one unit, those gifts would have ceased? Of what use then are those passages to us today? Seems an awful waste.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

Other than that, I like James' answer, it is very sound exposition. =)

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

Another good thread. I shall contribute more later.

Those of you who haven't yet, please contribute to my "IS BELIEF A WORK?" thread.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2000

AKelley and John,

I find what you both say to be very interesting.

I think people (not you, apparently) often forget that ALL of the New Testament was written 30-65 A.D.+ - years after Pentecost and after Christ left to return to His Father.

The Revelation was estimated to be written in 96 A.D. I have often wondered why it could be not considered to be for us ~ all of it.

The gifts are for US, IMHO. Also, there is no more male or female; we are all one in Christ Jesus.

I think Nelta has brought up many important things to think about, and while we all may make mistakes (in others' opinions), THAT shouldn't negate what caused us to cry out in the first place.

While Nelta could be wrong in her 'take', and I'm not saying she is, what about the men with a greater responsibility to love, forgive, try to understand, build up in the Faith, and just LISTEN to her, without upbraiding her?

Can't we disagree without being disagreeable? I am shocked at the responses of some who concede they are Nelta's 'brothers'. I don't even get THAT designation. (I suppose privately I am referred to as a 'thorn in the flesh').

I know that Nelta agrees with you and not me on baptism, but she has never criticized me for that, and when she herself has been called evil names, has not responded in kind.

I respect her. I respect the rest of you, as well.

Continuing to wait, watch and pray,

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2000

Nelta,

It is always good to see consistency and you are ever consistant in your attempts to deny the fact that God, in His Word, established that men were to be the leaders of the church.

To answer your question:

Look at who 14:26 is addressed to: "BRETHREN"! Paul was not even speaking to the women at that point. And why was he not addressing them in verse 26? Because he addresses them in verses 34-35.

Why did Paul say for them not to speak in verse 35? Because it was improper or disgraceful. Understand, this was the 1st Century, not the 21st century. In those days, the only women who spoke in public places were Prostitutes. Paul tells them to be silent in this passage so that they do not embarass or disgrace themselves. Paul wasn't restricting women in this passage, he was trying to protect them (and the church) from public disgrace.

It is in I Timothy that Paul deals with the issue of women teachers and leaders and gives the reason why they were prohibitted from exercising authority or teaching men. This is a different issue from the I Corinthian passages, as they deal with totally different contexts.

And as far as your last statement, "Someone added the following: "As in all the corporate dynamic churches that are really growing, members who are not on payroll must remain silent. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission because that's the way things are. If they want to inquire about something, they should keep it to themselves, for it is disgraceful for non-professionals to speak in church (and the senior pastor doesn't have time for this kind of thing anyway)" this is totally ludicrous.

In your last attempt to attack the "Good men" of this forum, you tried to assert through your little parody that no one could speak in a church except the "staff". Yet EVERY SINGLE PREACHER who replied, denied that and gave examples of those who had come forth to preach in their churches. How do you explain the difference?

Either your research into this matter is HIGHLY defective or else you just have your own opinion based on your disregard for Christ's church and the order the Apostles established for its operation.

My money is on "C. All of the Above"!

After this little attack, you now owe yet another apology to the "good men" and "faithful women" who post on this forum!

Still waiting........................

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000