WOMEN IN THE BIBLE

[Johann]

WOMEN IN THE BIBLE

The Old Testament (ANE culture)
Culturally women were considered property
included in list of property (Exodus 20:17)
treatment of slave women (Exodus 21:7-11)
women's vows annullable by socially responsible male (Numbers 30)
women as spoils of war (Deuteronomy 20:10-14; 21:10-14)
Practically there was a mutuality
male and female made in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27)
honor father and mother (Exodus 20:12 [Deut. 5:16])
reverence mother and father (Leviticus 19:3; 20:9)
men and women could be Nazirites (Numbers 6:1-2)
daughters have right of inheritance (Numbers 27:1-11)
part of covenant people (Deuteronomy 29:10-12)
observe teaching of father and mother (Proverbs 1:8; 6:20)
sons and daughters of Heman (Levite family) led music in temple (1 Chronicles 25:5-6)
sons and daughters will prophesy in new age (Joel 2:28-29)
Women were in leadership roles
Moses' sister, Miriam, called a prophetess (Exodus 15:20-21, also note Micah 6:4)
a married woman, Deborah, also a prophetess (cf. Jdgs. 4:4), led all the tribes (Jdgs 4:4-5; 5:7)
Huldah was a prophetess whom King Josiah contacted to read and interpret the newly-found "Book of the Law" (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chr. 34:22-27)
Queen Esther, a godly woman, saved the Jews in Persia

The New Testament
Culturally women in both Judaism and the Greco-Roman world were second class citizens with few rights or privileges (the exception was Macedonia).

Women in leadership roles in the NT
Elizabeth and Mary, godly women available to God (Luke 1-2)
Anna, a prophetess serving at the temple (Luke 2:36)
Lydia, believer and leader of a house church in Macedonia (Acts 16:14,40)
Philip's four virgin daughters were prophetesses (Acts 21:8-9)
Phoebe, deaconess of church at Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1; also note 1 Tim. 3:11)
Prisca (Priscilla), Paul's fellow-worker and teacher of Apollos (Acts 18:26; Rom. 16:3)
Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, Julia, Nereus' sister, several women co-workers of Paul (Rom. 16:6-16; see SPECIAL TOPIC: WOMEN IN MINISTRY)
Junia (KJV), possibly a woman apostle (Rom. 16:7)
Euodia and Syntyche, co-workers with Paul (Phil. 4:2-3)

How does a modern believer balance the divergent biblical examples?
How does one determine historical or cultural truths, which apply only to the original context, from eternal truths valid for all churches, all believers of all ages?
We must take the intent of the original inspired author very seriously. The Bible is the Word of God and the only source for faith and practice.
We must deal with the obviously historically-conditioned inspired texts.
the cultus (i.e., ritual and liturgy) of Israel (cf. Acts 15; Galatians 3)
first century Judaism
Paul's obviously historically-conditioned statements in 1 Corinthians
(1) the legal system of pagan Rome (1 Corinthians 6)
(2) remaining a slave (1 Cor. 7:20-24)
(3) celibacy (1 Cor. 7:1-35; see SPECIAL TOPIC: CELIBACY AND MARRIAGE)
(4) virgins (1 Cor. 7:36-38)
(5) food sacrificed to an idol (1 Corinthians 8; 10:23-33)
(6) unworthy actions at Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11)
God fully and clearly revealed Himself to a particular culture, a particular day. We must take seriously the revelation, but not every aspect of its historical accommodation. The Word of God was written in human words, addressed to a particular culture at a particular time.
Biblical interpretation must seek the original author's intent. What was he saying to his day? This is foundational and crucial for proper interpretation. But then we must apply this to our own day. The real interpretive problem may be defining biblical terms.
Were there more ministries than pastors who were seen as leadership?
Were deaconesses or prophetesses seen as leaders?
It is quite clear that Paul, in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15, is asserting that women should not take the lead in public worship! But how do I apply that today? I do not want Paul's culture or my culture to silence God's eternal Word and will. Possibly Paul's day was too limiting, but also my day may be too open. I feel so uncomfortable saying that Paul's words and teachings are conditional, first century, local situational truths. Who am I that I should let my mind or my culture negate an inspired author?! Gordon Fee, Gospel and Spirit, has really helped me.

However, what do I do when there are biblical examples of women leaders (even in Paul's writings, cf. Romans 16)? A good example of this is Paul's discussion of public worship in 1 Corinthians 11-14. In 1 Cor. 11:5 he seems to allow women's preaching and praying in public worship, with their heads covered, yet in 14:34-35 he demands they remain silent! There were deaconesses (cf. Rom. 16:1; see SPECIAL TOPIC: PAUL'S USE OF WOMEN IN MINISTRY) and prophetesses (cf. Luke 2:36 and Acts 21:9). It is this diversity that allows me freedom to identify Paul's comments (as relates to restrictions on women) as limited to first century Corinth and Ephesus (possibly women as surrogate speakers for the false teachers in homes or house churches). In both churches there were problems with women exercising their newly-found freedom (cf. Bruce Winter, After Paul Left Corinth), which could have caused difficulty for the church in reaching their society for Christ. Their freedom had to be limited so that the gospel could be more effective.

My day is just the opposite of Paul's. In my day the gospel might be limited if articulate, trained women are not allowed to share the gospel, not allowed to lead! What is the ultimate goal of public worship? Is it not evangelism and discipleship? Can God be honored and pleased with women leaders? The Bible as a whole seems to say "yes"!

I want to yield to Paul; my theology is primarily Pauline. I do not want to be overly influenced or manipulated by modern feminism! However, I feel the church has been slow to respond to obvious biblical truths, like the inappropriateness of slavery, racism, bigotry, and sexism. It has also been slow to respond appropriately to the abuse of women in the modern world. God in Christ set free the slave and the woman. I dare not let a culture-bound text reshackle them.

One more point: as an interpreter I know that Corinth was a very disrupted church. The charismatic gifts were prized and flaunted. Women may have been caught up in this. I also believe that Ephesus was being affected by false teachers who were taking advantage of women and using them as surrogate speakers in the house churches of Ephesus.
"Bible Interpretation Seminar", #3

 

[RedFan]

My wife is an Episcopal priest. Godly woman. Harvard Divinity School grad. Smart as anyone I know. I've heard her preach, and she is as good or better than any man I've ever heard form the pulpit.

It makes no logical sense that God would care one whit about the gonads of His ministers. But logic is never invoked as a basis to deny ordination to women. Rather, the arguments against women serving as clergy are always premised on Scripture and Tradition.

The appeal to Scripture is primarily centered on Paul’s letters, especially 1 Cor. 14:34-35: “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” For several reasons, I’m not buying it. I think it far more logical to conclude that this comment is a culturally sensitive anachronism and not a timeless directive.

First, note that Paul cites “the Law” as his authority. (Yup, the same “Law” that he elsewhere says we are not under, see Rom. 6:14, Gal. 5:18.) What Old Testament directive supports him? I can find none aside from Gen. 3:16: “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” But there is nothing here about women keeping silent. Indeed, rather than a general statement about the relative position between men and women, this verse is about the special relation between husband and wife. If this is the “Law” that Paul meant to invoke, his words would only apply to married women. A female minister whose husband was not in the congregation can’t possibly run afoul of this “Law.”

Second is his use of “shameful” (αἰσχρὸνto) to describe the practice of women speaking in church. Shame is a human reaction to violating the mores of the times. 1 Cor. 11:16 uses the same word αἰσχρὸνto to describe a woman praying with her head uncovered.

Then there is 1 Tim. 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” This too looks to be specific to husband and wives. The word γυναικὶ used in this verse can be translated either as “woman” or as “wife” – the proper meaning being a matter of the passage’s context. No one would doubt for example, that γυναικὶ should be translated as “wife” in Matt. 19:5, or in 1 Cor. 7:3, 14, 27 and 33. So should it be in 1 Tim. 2:12, according to Luther: “Here we properly take ‘woman’ to mean ‘wife,’ as he reveals from his correlative phrase (v. 12) ‘to have authority over man,’ that is, over her husband. He calls the husband ‘man,’ so he calls the wife ‘woman.’ Where men and women have been joined together, there the men, not the women, ought to have authority. . . . He wants to save the order preserved by the world—that a man be the head of a woman, as 1 Corinthians 11:3 tells us.” Martin Luther, Lectures on 1 Timothy, found in Luther’s Works, vol. 28, Hilton C. Oswald ed. (Concordia, 1973), 276–77.

There is a contextual reason to translate γυναικὶ as “wife” here. Reading verses 8 through 14 together discloses that silence is not commanded upon women generally, since v. 9 speaks about how women should dress modestly, apparently while praying with men in public. A command that “women” should be silent a few verses later just makes little sense– but if it is “wives” being referred to a few verses later, then the entirety of the passage can be more easily saved from inconsistency. I prefer interpretations where the writer doesn’t contradict himself in the space of six verses! If we conclude that Paul isn’t trying to silence women generally, as 1 Cor. 11:5 shows, discussing the women wearing a veil while prophesying, then logic suggests that wives and husbands are being referred to in verses 11 through 14.

Lastly, it is worth noting that Paul hasn’t been entirely consistent; he dispatched Phoebe, a deaconess from Cenchreae just a few miles from Corinth, to preach in Rome. Rom. 16:1 uses the word διάκονον to describe her position.)

Turning now from Scripture to Tradition, the appeal to nearly 2,000 years of having exclusively male ministers ignores that that tradition is coextensive with 2,000 of cultural subordination of women. Is this “co-incidence” accidental, or is it causal? If the latter, then every Christian thinker from Paul forward has extrapolated culture into his theology. (It grieves me to have to use the pronoun “his” here―but culturally, women weren’t allowed to be scholars until recently.)

Those who say “it’s accidental” need to rethink their stance. Our traditions on this are not from God, but from man. (There’s that gendered word again! Ever wonder why “mankind” is shorthand for all of humanity while “womankind” is shorthand for only half of humanity?) The disparity in gender roles is so ingrained in our culture that we take it for granted in everything we do and think. It cannot help but color our views on everything, religion included, if we don’t pay attention.

Male and female role playing is largely a byproduct of child-bearing and physical strength, and male-dominated societies arose initially through division of labor translating into division of power. And the party in power tends to stay in power. Men have made women submissive since they lived in caves. Well, isn’t it time to come out into the light?

 

[Johann]

My wife is an Episcopal priest. Godly woman. Harvard Divinity School grad. Smart as anyone I know. I've heard her preach, and she is as good or better than any man I've ever heard form the pulpit.

It makes no logical sense that God would care one whit about the gonads of His ministers. But logic is never invoked as a basis to deny ordination to women. Rather, the arguments against women serving as clergy are always premised on Scripture and Tradition.

The appeal to Scripture is primarily centered on Paul’s letters, especially 1 Cor. 14:34-35: “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” For several reasons, I’m not buying it. I think it far more logical to conclude that this comment is a culturally sensitive anachronism and not a timeless directive.

First, note that Paul cites “the Law” as his authority. (Yup, the same “Law” that he elsewhere says we are not under, see Rom. 6:14, Gal. 5:18.) What Old Testament directive supports him? I can find none aside from Gen. 3:16: “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” But there is nothing here about women keeping silent. Indeed, rather than a general statement about the relative position between men and women, this verse is about the special relation between husband and wife. If this is the “Law” that Paul meant to invoke, his words would only apply to married women. A female minister whose husband was not in the congregation can’t possibly run afoul of this “Law.”

Second is his use of “shameful” (αἰσχρὸνto) to describe the practice of women speaking in church. Shame is a human reaction to violating the mores of the times. 1 Cor. 11:16 uses the same word αἰσχρὸνto to describe a woman praying with her head uncovered.

Then there is 1 Tim. 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” This too looks to be specific to husband and wives. The word γυναικὶ used in this verse can be translated either as “woman” or as “wife” – the proper meaning being a matter of the passage’s context. No one would doubt for example, that γυναικὶ should be translated as “wife” in Matt. 19:5, or in 1 Cor. 7:3, 14, 27 and 33. So should it be in 1 Tim. 2:12, according to Luther: “Here we properly take ‘woman’ to mean ‘wife,’ as he reveals from his correlative phrase (v. 12) ‘to have authority over man,’ that is, over her husband. He calls the husband ‘man,’ so he calls the wife ‘woman.’ Where men and women have been joined together, there the men, not the women, ought to have authority. . . . He wants to save the order preserved by the world—that a man be the head of a woman, as 1 Corinthians 11:3 tells us.” Martin Luther, Lectures on 1 Timothy, found in Luther’s Works, vol. 28, Hilton C. Oswald ed. (Concordia, 1973), 276–77.

There is a contextual reason to translate γυναικὶ as “wife” here. Reading verses 8 through 14 together discloses that silence is not commanded upon women generally, since v. 9 speaks about how women should dress modestly, apparently while praying with men in public. A command that “women” should be silent a few verses later just makes little sense– but if it is “wives” being referred to a few verses later, then the entirety of the passage can be more easily saved from inconsistency. I prefer interpretations where the writer doesn’t contradict himself in the space of six verses! If we conclude that Paul isn’t trying to silence women generally, as 1 Cor. 11:5 shows, discussing the women wearing a veil while prophesying, then logic suggests that wives and husbands are being referred to in verses 11 through 14.

Lastly, it is worth noting that Paul hasn’t been entirely consistent; he dispatched Phoebe, a deaconess from Cenchreae just a few miles from Corinth, to preach in Rome. Rom. 16:1 uses the word διάκονον to describe her position.)

Turning now from Scripture to Tradition, the appeal to nearly 2,000 years of having exclusively male ministers ignores that that tradition is coextensive with 2,000 of cultural subordination of women. Is this “co-incidence” accidental, or is it causal? If the latter, then every Christian thinker from Paul forward has extrapolated culture into his theology. (It grieves me to have to use the pronoun “his” here―but culturally, women weren’t allowed to be scholars until recently.)

Those who say “it’s accidental” need to rethink their stance. Our traditions on this are not from God, but from man. (There’s that gendered word again! Ever wonder why “mankind” is shorthand for all of humanity while “womankind” is shorthand for only half of humanity?) The disparity in gender roles is so ingrained in our culture that we take it for granted in everything we do and think. It cannot help but color our views on everything, religion included, if we don’t pay attention.

Male and female role playing is largely a byproduct of child-bearing and physical strength, and male-dominated societies arose initially through division of labor translating into division of power. And the party in power tends to stay in power. Men have made women submissive since they lived in caves. Well, isn’t it time to come out into the light?

Did you give brother Utley a listen?

5 Hour 2022 Bible Study Seminar

Bible Interpretation Seminar Lessons, by Dr. Bob Utley, retired professor of hermeneutics (Bible interpretation).

www.freebiblecommentary.org

J.

 

[RedFan]

Did you give brother Utley a listen?

5 Hour 2022 Bible Study Seminar

Bible Interpretation Seminar Lessons, by Dr. Bob Utley, retired professor of hermeneutics (Bible interpretation).

www.freebiblecommentary.org

J.

I did.

 

[Johann]

I did.

Still reading through your post @RedFan.

A book I highly recommend is Hard Sayings-

HARD
SAYINGS
of the
BIBLE
Walter C. Kaiser Jr.
Peter H. Davids
F.F. Bruce
Manfred T. Brauch

--on this topic brother, Utley used this a lot.

 

[Johann]

Women to Keep Silence?
Several acute problems are raised by 1 Corinthians 14:33–34 for the Bible reader who seeks
to be a faithful interpreter of the whole counsel of God revealed in Scripture as well as an
obedient follower of Christ.

First, a series of questions is forced on us by the text itself and the verses which follow:
Does the New Testament as a whole show that women were routinely excluded from verbal
participation in Christian worship? Why are they not allowed to speak? Which “Law” is
referred to in 1 Corinthians 14:34? How are “submission” and “silence” related?

A second series of questions is raised by the relation between this hard saying and the
immediate and wider biblical context. How can Paul say earlier in this epistle that women are
to have a head covering on while praying and proclaiming the gospel (1 Cor 11:3–16) and
now in the same letter forbid verbal participation? Further, how are we to take the apparent
discrepancy between this blanket prohibition and the fact that there are numerous examples of
women’s active participation in the worship life of early Christianity?

The text we are looking at is located at the conclusion of a lengthy section (1 Cor 11–14)
in which Paul deals with problem situations in the context of worship. He has dealt with
proper decorum of men and women while praying and prophesying (1 Cor 11:2–16); with
irregularities at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17–34); and finally with the nature, function, use
and abuse of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12–14), with special consideration of the ecstatic
phenomenon “speaking in tongues” and “prophecy” (1 Cor 14:1–25).

It is apparent in the immediately surrounding context (1 Cor 14:26–40) of this saying that
the elevation and glorification of ecstatic, unintelligible utterance by some faction in the
congregation created disorder and confusion in worship (see comment on 1 Cor 14:5). Thus in
addressing those who speak in tongues (1 Cor 14:27–28), he calls for order: they should speak
“one at a time.” The utterances should be interpreted (1 Cor 14:27), since without
interpretation it would confound the hearers and cause them to wonder whether there is
madness here (1 Cor 14:23). Without an interpreter, “the speaker should keep quiet in the
church” (1 Cor 14:28). In addressing those who have the gift for prophetic proclamation of
the gospel (1 Cor 14:29–33), the concern for order in worship is also evident. Their speaking
is to be “in turn,” that is, not all at the same time. The purpose of all verbal communication is
“the strengthening of the church” (1 Cor 14:26) through the instruction and encouragement of
everyone (1 Cor 14:31). That purpose, as Paul sees it, can only be accomplished when there is
order in worship, “for God is not a God of disorder, but of peace” (1 Cor 14:33; see also 1 Cor
14:40).

All of the above shows that Paul is dealing with abuses and actions in worship which
disrupt God’s purposes and which therefore need correction. Within such a setting, the text
seems clearly to belong to the category of “corrective texts” whose purpose is focused toward
a local situation. Paul’s word that “women should remain silent in the churches” would
therefore seem, at least primarily, to have authoritative import (“What I am writing to you is
the Lord’s command,” 1 Cor 14:37) for the particular situation in Corinth (as well as similar
situations; for example, the one addressed in 1 Tim 2:11–12). One must be careful therefore
not to immediately jump to the conclusion that Paul’s injunction has implications for all
women in all churches.


Support for restraint in this area comes from both other things Paul writes and practices in
the early churches which show that women’s vocal participation in worship and in other
instructional or leadership roles was accepted and affirmed.

Paul himself acknowledges in this
same letter the validity and appropriateness of women as full participants in public prayer and
the proclamation of the gospel (1 Cor 11:5, 13). What he finds invalid and unacceptable is
that they engage in this activity without a head covering, since that rejection of
cultural/religious custom creates a potential stumbling block. Paul even affirms in that context
that “the churches of God” recognize no other practice (1 Cor 11:16), namely, the
appropriateness of a head covering for women who are praying and prophesying in the
church.

If Paul believed that women should be silent in the churches in a comprehensive, universal
sense, he would not have spent so much time instructing women what to do with their heads;
he would have simply forbidden their practice of praying and prophesying in the assembled
congregation.

Paul’s larger view—which acknowledged and validated the vocal participation of women
in the churches—is supported in other New Testament writings. Thus the proclamation of the
“wonders of God” (namely, his redemptive work in and through Jesus of Nazareth—Acts
2:11, 22–36) is interpreted in Peter’s Pentecost sermon as the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Joel 2:28–29 that in the last days, under the inspiration of God’s outpoured Spirit, “your sons
and daughters will prophesy. … Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out
my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17–18, emphasis mine). In keeping
with this prophetic word and the commencement of its fulfillment at Pentecost, Luke
mentions matter-of-factly that the evangelist Philip had four daughters who were engaged in
the prophetic ministry of the good news (Acts 21:8–9).

In light of this evidence that women in the early churches were moved by the Spirit to
engage in ministries of the Word side by side with men, it is difficult, if not impossible, to
understand Paul’s injunction as a categorical imperative intended for all churches in all places
in all times. Rather, the injunction must be understood within its own context as addressing a
problem in Corinth which needed correcting.

Hard Sayings by F.F. Bruce.

 

[RedFan]

Still reading through your post @RedFan.

A book I highly recommend is Hard Sayings-

HARD
SAYINGS
of the
BIBLE
Walter C. Kaiser Jr.
Peter H. Davids
F.F. Bruce
Manfred T. Brauch

--on this topic brother, Utley used this a lot.

I am a fan of F.F. Bruce. And also of NT. Wright, whose take on the subject of womens' roles in the church overlaps with Utley's (but his video a lot shorter) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...C3AnoECAsQAg&usg=AOvVaw0oLQ2DJKdVXvzBA5cMnrbB

 

[Waiting on him]

Women to Keep Silence?
Several acute problems are raised by 1 Corinthians 14:33–34 for the Bible reader who seeks
to be a faithful interpreter of the whole counsel of God revealed in Scripture as well as an
obedient follower of Christ.

First, a series of questions is forced on us by the text itself and the verses which follow:
Does the New Testament as a whole show that women were routinely excluded from verbal
participation in Christian worship? Why are they not allowed to speak? Which “Law” is
referred to in 1 Corinthians 14:34? How are “submission” and “silence” related?

A second series of questions is raised by the relation between this hard saying and the
immediate and wider biblical context. How can Paul say earlier in this epistle that women are
to have a head covering on while praying and proclaiming the gospel (1 Cor 11:3–16) and
now in the same letter forbid verbal participation? Further, how are we to take the apparent
discrepancy between this blanket prohibition and the fact that there are numerous examples of
women’s active participation in the worship life of early Christianity?

The text we are looking at is located at the conclusion of a lengthy section (1 Cor 11–14)
in which Paul deals with problem situations in the context of worship. He has dealt with
proper decorum of men and women while praying and prophesying (1 Cor 11:2–16); with
irregularities at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17–34); and finally with the nature, function, use
and abuse of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12–14), with special consideration of the ecstatic
phenomenon “speaking in tongues” and “prophecy” (1 Cor 14:1–25).

It is apparent in the immediately surrounding context (1 Cor 14:26–40) of this saying that
the elevation and glorification of ecstatic, unintelligible utterance by some faction in the
congregation created disorder and confusion in worship (see comment on 1 Cor 14:5). Thus in
addressing those who speak in tongues (1 Cor 14:27–28), he calls for order: they should speak
“one at a time.” The utterances should be interpreted (1 Cor 14:27), since without
interpretation it would confound the hearers and cause them to wonder whether there is
madness here (1 Cor 14:23). Without an interpreter, “the speaker should keep quiet in the
church” (1 Cor 14:28). In addressing those who have the gift for prophetic proclamation of
the gospel (1 Cor 14:29–33), the concern for order in worship is also evident. Their speaking
is to be “in turn,” that is, not all at the same time. The purpose of all verbal communication is
“the strengthening of the church” (1 Cor 14:26) through the instruction and encouragement of
everyone (1 Cor 14:31). That purpose, as Paul sees it, can only be accomplished when there is
order in worship, “for God is not a God of disorder, but of peace” (1 Cor 14:33; see also 1 Cor
14:40).

All of the above shows that Paul is dealing with abuses and actions in worship which
disrupt God’s purposes and which therefore need correction. Within such a setting, the text
seems clearly to belong to the category of “corrective texts” whose purpose is focused toward
a local situation. Paul’s word that “women should remain silent in the churches” would
therefore seem, at least primarily, to have authoritative import (“What I am writing to you is
the Lord’s command,” 1 Cor 14:37) for the particular situation in Corinth (as well as similar
situations; for example, the one addressed in 1 Tim 2:11–12). One must be careful therefore
not to immediately jump to the conclusion that Paul’s injunction has implications for all
women in all churches.


Support for restraint in this area comes from both other things Paul writes and practices in
the early churches which show that women’s vocal participation in worship and in other
instructional or leadership roles was accepted and affirmed.

Paul himself acknowledges in this
same letter the validity and appropriateness of women as full participants in public prayer and
the proclamation of the gospel (1 Cor 11:5, 13). What he finds invalid and unacceptable is
that they engage in this activity without a head covering, since that rejection of
cultural/religious custom creates a potential stumbling block. Paul even affirms in that context
that “the churches of God” recognize no other practice (1 Cor 11:16), namely, the
appropriateness of a head covering for women who are praying and prophesying in the
church.

If Paul believed that women should be silent in the churches in a comprehensive, universal
sense, he would not have spent so much time instructing women what to do with their heads;
he would have simply forbidden their practice of praying and prophesying in the assembled
congregation.

Paul’s larger view—which acknowledged and validated the vocal participation of women
in the churches—is supported in other New Testament writings. Thus the proclamation of the
“wonders of God” (namely, his redemptive work in and through Jesus of Nazareth—Acts
2:11, 22–36) is interpreted in Peter’s Pentecost sermon as the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Joel 2:28–29 that in the last days, under the inspiration of God’s outpoured Spirit, “your sons
and daughters will prophesy. … Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out
my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17–18, emphasis mine). In keeping
with this prophetic word and the commencement of its fulfillment at Pentecost, Luke
mentions matter-of-factly that the evangelist Philip had four daughters who were engaged in
the prophetic ministry of the good news (Acts 21:8–9).

In light of this evidence that women in the early churches were moved by the Spirit to
engage in ministries of the Word side by side with men, it is difficult, if not impossible, to
understand Paul’s injunction as a categorical imperative intended for all churches in all places
in all times. Rather, the injunction must be understood within its own context as addressing a
problem in Corinth which needed correcting.

Hard Sayings by F.F. Bruce.

Maybe we must first define what a man in the body of Christ is.

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
— Ephesians 4:13


Does this verse apply to both male and female?

 

[Johann]

Maybe we must first define what a man in the body of Christ is.

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
— Ephesians 4:13


Does this verse apply to both male and female?

Unto a perfect man - Unto a complete man. This figure is obvious. The apostle compares their condition then to a state of childhood. The perfect man here refers to the man “grown up,” the man of mature life. He says that Christ had appointed pastors and teachers that the infant church might be conducted to “maturity;” or become strong - like a man. He does not refer to the doctrine of “sinless perfection” - but to the state of manhood as compared with that of childhood - a state of strength, vigor, wisdom, when the full growth should be attained; see 1Co_14:20.

You want to exclude women?
J.

 

[Waiting on him]

Unto a perfect man - Unto a complete man. This figure is obvious. The apostle compares their condition then to a state of childhood. The perfect man here refers to the man “grown up,” the man of mature life. He says that Christ had appointed pastors and teachers that the infant church might be conducted to “maturity;” or become strong - like a man. He does not refer to the doctrine of “sinless perfection” - but to the state of manhood as compared with that of childhood - a state of strength, vigor, wisdom, when the full growth should be attained; see 1Co_14:20.

You want to exclude women?
J.

My wish is that females not be excluded.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
— Galatians 3:28

The objective for male or female in the body of Christ is to become this man.

The woman in the scriptures you’ve sited is a reference to a new convert in the early church.

 

[Waiting on him]

The woman is saved in childbearing!

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
— 1 Timothy 2:15

If this is in reference to Al literal female then we have a big problem; what does God do with the females that can’t bare children?

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
— Galatians 4:19

 

[Johann]

My wish is that females not be excluded.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
— Galatians 3:28

The objective for male or female in the body of Christ is to become this man.

The woman in the scriptures you’ve sited is a reference to a new convert in the early church.

One man (heis). No word for “man” in the Greek, and yet heis is masculine, not neuter hen. “One moral personality” (Vincent). The point is that “in Christ Jesus” race or national distinctions (“neither Jew nor Greek”) do not exist, class differences (“neither bond nor free,” no proletarianism and no capitalism) vanish, sex rivalry (“no male and female”) disappears. This radical statement marks out the path along which Christianity was to come in the sphere (en) and spirit and power of Christ. Candour compels one to confess that this goal has not yet been fully attained. But we are on the road and there is no hope on any way than on “the Jesus Road.”


J.

 

[Waiting on him]

One man (heis). No word for “man” in the Greek, and yet heis is masculine, not neuter hen. “One moral personality” (Vincent). The point is that “in Christ Jesus” race or national distinctions (“neither Jew nor Greek”) do not exist, class differences (“neither bond nor free,” no proletarianism and no capitalism) vanish, sex rivalry (“no male and female”) disappears. This radical statement marks out the path along which Christianity was to come in the sphere (en) and spirit and power of Christ. Candour compels one to confess that this goal has not yet been fully attained. But we are on the road and there is no hope on any way than on “the Jesus Road.”


J.

I believe the destination was literally reached in the first century.

 

[Waiting on him]

One man (heis). No word for “man” in the Greek, and yet heis is masculine, not neuter hen. “One moral personality” (Vincent). The point is that “in Christ Jesus” race or national distinctions (“neither Jew nor Greek”) do not exist, class differences (“neither bond nor free,” no proletarianism and no capitalism) vanish, sex rivalry (“no male and female”) disappears. This radical statement marks out the path along which Christianity was to come in the sphere (en) and spirit and power of Christ. Candour compels one to confess that this goal has not yet been fully attained. But we are on the road and there is no hope on any way than on “the Jesus Road.”


J.

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
— Genesis 5:2

 

[Johann]

I believe the destination was literally reached in the first century.

Care to elaborate?

J.

 

[Waiting on him]

Care to elaborate?

J.

My mental faculties are limited,

In the body of the Christ there is no such thing as gender, ethnicity or social status is what I am claiming. I reconcile the language being used forbidding women to speak as viewing these individuals as new converts male, female, and subordinates, that have yet to have been through the veil.

 

[Waiting on him]

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
— Galatians 4:19

 

[Waiting on him]

@Johann

Do you view yourself as the bride of Christ?

 

[Johann]

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
— Genesis 5:2

In Mar_10:6 Jesus says, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” He did not say God made men and women; rather, He said that God made this couple as a male and a female, stressing the single bond of marriage.
Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament - A reference to Gen_5:2 and Gen_1:27 is found in the following New Testament passages.
Gen_1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Mat_19:4, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,”
Mar_10:6, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”

J.

 

[Waiting on him]

The mind of Christ eliminates all racial barriers, and any gendered arguments it tears down strongholds destroying spiritual wickedness in high places.