• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Meat Can women pray or prophesy in the Assembly?

I would go even farther and say that speaking in the assembly is more properly understood as speaking to the assembly, but there’s probably no point in complicating things.

@FollowingHim brings up a good point though @James Pease , do you accept that verses 34-35 putting any restrictions on a woman’s speech or do you think they have nothing to do with speech?
 
Good thread and spirited debate. Funny at points...

'...silent in the assemblies, ...to subject themselves...as the Law also says.'

In this context, I believe 'assembly' is to be understood the same way ekklesia was used of Israel in the LXX. This is the Qahal, the 'congregation.' According to the Law, this is composed of able bodied men over 20 who can go to war. Numbers 1:1-4, 17-19; 2:32; 26:2. Therefore, a gathering of the men (who are representative heads for their houses) constitutes the assembly.

Subject themselves is rooted in Gen 3:16 as expressed in the assembly. I.e., deference to her representative head who speaks for her. (I don't go to meetings with my boss, then start speaking... I let him do the talking!)

The combination of the above two = 'as the Law says...'

'silent' is admittedly a bit squishy because singing, greeting, etc necessitate making a sound. It makes way more sense to lean toward the lexical provision of teach/speak w intent of addressing the assembly (men), etc. Therefore, her question is asked at home.
 
So my question for @frederick, @The Revolting Man and @James Pease is simply "what contextual reason is there to believe that the word, in that specific sentence, has the specific meaning you have chosen from the list of options?"
Thank you for the question. My reasons are simple @FollowingHim. Thayer includes a reference to 1 Cor. 14:34 under 5. The writer chose to use λαλέω rather than λέγω, the more common verb for saying or speaking and, because of that, communicating what is consistent with the context. For example, if you look at other places λαλέω is used, you will see in e.g. Acts 13:42, the NKJV translators have chosen the English word preached for this same verb; So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. (See also e.g. Acts 14:25 preached; Rev. 17:1 talked etc.) This word λαλέω is the word that communicates the restrictions on the women using the speaking gifts most accurately - which is what Paul is dealing with there in Chapter 14.

To answer your question simply; I adhere to the three basic rules of biblical interpretation: context, context, context.

I note a certain other person just rants, and raves and hurls abuse at those he disagrees with in spite of the fact he has no idea what the words used mean. By his own admission he doesn't even know there is a difference between λαλέω and λέγω and what those words would communicate in their various contexts and constructions.

So why not say that? Why say converse? You just listed the definition of the word and it wasn’t “use spiritual gifts verbally”. It was to “use words”.

You see the disconnect? Paul says “your women aren’t to use words” and you say “no, it’s fine just don’t use words for certain purposes.” But that’s still using words.

Why do you use these lexicons so much? You don’t seem to trust them at all. You quote the definition and then immediately use a vastly different one.

So you see the Law teaches that women should be silent in the assembly.
Really? But he contradicts himself saying they can sing.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the question. My reasons are simple @FollowingHim. Thayer includes a reference to 1 Cor. 14:34 under 5. The writer chose to use λαλέω rather than λέγω, the more common verb for saying or speaking and, because of that, communicating what is consistent with the context. For example, if you look at other places λαλέω is used, you will see in e.g. Acts 13:42, the NKJV translators have chosen the English word preached for this same verb; So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. (See also e.g. Acts 14:25 preached; Rev. 17:1 talked etc.) This word λαλέω is the word that communicates the restrictions on the women using the speaking gifts most accurately - which is what Paul is dealing with there in Chapter 14.

To answer your question simply; I adhere to the three basic rules of biblical interpretation: context, context, context.

I note a certain other person just rants, and raves and hurls abuse at those he disagrees with in spite of the fact he has no idea what the words used mean. By his own admission he doesn't even know there is a difference between λαλέω and λέγω and what those words would communicate in their various contexts and constructions.




Really? But he contradicts himself saying they can sing.
Singing is qualitatively and quantifiably different than speaking. I don’t need an antebellum loopedy-doo to tell me that.
 
You've got to be joking! Unbelievable.... absolutely UN.BE.LIEV.A.BLE!! Did she say, Amen at the end of prayers?
Now that doesn’t sound like me.
And singing either, tbh. Unless the Amalangs play something old school. I don’t know much of anything newer than 1996-ish.😂
 
Last edited:
Singing is qualitatively and quantifiably different than speaking. I don’t need an antebellum loopedy-doo to tell me that.
@The Revolting Man, when @Edward cites Thayers in great detail you "love" his post, while when @frederick cites the very same entry in Thayers you hurl abuse at the very idea of using a lexicon. This is ridiculous, especially when you two are almost entirely in agreement (at least compared to the major opposing view being presented in this conversation).
 
Thank you for the question. My reasons are simple @FollowingHim. Thayer includes a reference to 1 Cor. 14:34 under 5. The writer chose to use λαλέω rather than λέγω, the more common verb for saying or speaking and, because of that, communicating what is consistent with the context. For example, if you look at other places λαλέω is used, you will see in e.g. Acts 13:42, the NKJV translators have chosen the English word preached for this same verb; So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. (See also e.g. Acts 14:25 preached; Rev. 17:1 talked etc.) This word λαλέω is the word that communicates the restrictions on the women using the speaking gifts most accurately - which is what Paul is dealing with there in Chapter 14.
So, although the word λαλέω has a range of definitions according to the lexicon, in actual Biblical usage (letting scripture interpret scripture) it is almost always used with the 5th definition in Thayers - to speak your mind, to teach or preach? So the other definitions are somewhat redundant?

Is λαλέω ever used in scripture with a broader meaning of "to speak" or "to make a noise", or is λέγω always used in such circumstances?
 
@The Revolting Man, when @Edward cites Thayers in great detail you "love" his post, while when @frederick cites the very same entry in Thayers you hurl abuse at the very idea of using a lexicon. This is ridiculous, especially when you two are almost entirely in agreement (at least compared to the major opposing view being presented in this conversation).
Yes but Edward uses Thayer’s like a normal person in order to get at the truth. Frederick uses it the way a rich woman uses a mink stole. Also Frederick’s wife’s chauffeur is a terrible theologian and he seems to get most of his theology from there rather than Thayer’s.

Also, I laughed so hard and so long at “analgesic leprechaun” that I almost gave myself a hernia.
 
I would go even farther and say that speaking in the assembly is more properly understood as speaking to the assembly, but there’s probably no point in complicating things.

@FollowingHim brings up a good point though @James Pease , do you accept that verses 34-35 putting any restrictions on a woman’s speech or do you think they have nothing to do with speech?
I actually purposely haven't shared my view. I have no problem doing so now. I absolutely believe their are restrictions to a woman speaking in the Assembly. I believe the woman should be under authority when speaking. Sapphira spoke when she was addressed by Peter. If a woman has a question she should keep it to herself, and ask her husband at home. A woman does not speak over a man. A woman does not speak without permission while men are talking in the assembly. I am advocating for women to be able to greet one another, sing, ask for prayer requests, talk while eating a meal, teach children, older women to teach younger. I believe a woman is not to exercise authority over any man.
 
Singing is qualitatively and quantifiably different than speaking. I don’t need an antebellum loopedy-doo to tell me that.
Deuteronomy 31
30¶And Moses speaketh in the ears of all the assembly of Israel the words of this song, till their completion: --

How do you reconcile that one? Lol
 
Good thread and spirited debate. Funny at points...

'...silent in the assemblies, ...to subject themselves...as the Law also says.'

In this context, I believe 'assembly' is to be understood the same way ekklesia was used of Israel in the LXX. This is the Qahal, the 'congregation.' According to the Law, this is composed of able bodied men over 20 who can go to war. Numbers 1:1-4, 17-19; 2:32; 26:2. Therefore, a gathering of the men (who are representative heads for their houses) constitutes the assembly.

Subject themselves is rooted in Gen 3:16 as expressed in the assembly. I.e., deference to her representative head who speaks for her. (I don't go to meetings with my boss, then start speaking... I let him do the talking!)

The combination of the above two = 'as the Law says...'

'silent' is admittedly a bit squishy because singing, greeting, etc necessitate making a sound. It makes way more sense to lean toward the lexical provision of teach/speak w intent of addressing the assembly (men), etc. Therefore, her question is asked at home.
This is my understanding as well.
The Law could be the husband shall rule over you.
 
I actually purposely haven't shared my view. I have no problem doing so now. I absolutely believe their are restrictions to a woman speaking in the Assembly. I believe the woman should be under authority when speaking. Sapphira spoke when she was addressed by Peter. If a woman has a question she should keep it to herself, and ask her husband at home. A woman does not speak over a man. A woman does not speak without permission while men are talking in the assembly. I am advocating for women to be able to greet one another, sing, ask for prayer requests, talk while eating a meal, teach children, older women to teach younger. I believe a woman is not to exercises authority over any man.
Alright, that’s interesting. We’re not that far off then. You define the assembly much more expansively than most people do but that’s workable. It’s almost certainly not the assembly if men aren’t present of course.

I am curious; why you believe in those particular caveats? They’re not in the text. There’s just a blanket prohibition in the text. It seems like if there’s a ban at all it’s a near total ban depending on the definitions applied to speech and assembly.

How do you come up with the qualifiers?
 
Deuteronomy 31
30¶And Moses speaketh in the ears of all the assembly of Israel the words of this song, till their completion: --

How do you reconcile that one? Lol
Aren’t you the one who keeps saying context? It identifies this as singing as being distinct from just speaking.

It’s things like this that make me wonder if you have the appropriate reverence for spiritual matters. Looking for any text that can be somehow construed to be a rhetorical gotcha is not the right attitude. We’re looking for the truth, not debate points.
 
Alright, that’s interesting. We’re not that far off then. You define the assembly much more expansively than most people do but that’s workable. It’s almost certainly not the assembly if men aren’t present of course.

I am curious; why you believe in those particular caveats? They’re not in the text. There’s just a blanket prohibition in the text. It seems like if there’s a ban at all it’s a near total ban depending on the definitions applied to speech and assembly.

How do you come up with the qualifiers?
Because of my loose definition of the assembly. These are all things that are supposed to happen in the body of Christ. Praying, eating, singing, greeting one another, older teaching younger and teaching the children. Because I see the assembly as the body of Christ, these all fit within that. However when men teach, the woman are to learn in all quietness (peaceableness). When men talk about the business of the tribe then the women can listen quietly.
 
Aren’t you the one who keeps saying context? It identifies this as singing as being distinct from just speaking.

It’s things like this that make me wonder if you have the appropriate reverence for spiritual matters. Looking for any text that can be somehow construed to be a rhetorical gotcha is not the right attitude. We’re looking for the truth, not debate points.
Did he sing or speak here? That's all I was asking.
 
Back
Top