Yes but where is this Law written? It isn’t written in these two verses.
-
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?
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
Not quite. There’s similarities but there’s still the massive difference that I say there’s a blanket prohibition on women talking in the assembly that would prohibit them for praying or prophesying in the assembly. James does not. He thinks a woman can pray and prophesy in the assembly as long as they’re in submission.So it turns out everyone agrees on the destination, they just argued about which road to take to get there.
On the fundamental question the thread was started to answer we are still on opposing sides. What has occurred is that James has allowed that the passage in question does place some restrictions on women’s participation in the assembly and is not only about “headship”.
You define Law as thou shall and thou shall not. I do not. The word Torah in Hebrew is better know as instruction. The equivalent (the majority of the time) in the greek nomos. I believe conceptual teaching is law (instruction) as well. The conceptual teaching of a woman being subject is all through the writings. Pete covers a great deal of it in Authority, Headship, and Family structure according to Moses. Man and woman in biblical law does a good job as well.
Torah is all inclusive of ordinances, statutes, judgements, stories, parables, etc. But if I have define Law in the confines of your rules this is what we can find.
Genesis 3
16¶Unto the woman He said, 'Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband is thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'we
He shall rule over you.
Can you find a though shall or shall not verse about women speaking in the assembly? Paul is telling us that the law says what he is talking about. By your own definition of "law" you have not provided any evidences.
Singing is still using words. You have contradicted yourself
Make a strong case that women can sing, you have contradicted yourself and not reconciled it
When Moses spoke a song, did he sing or speak? How can you tell the difference? If a woman reads song lyrics out loud is that singing? Why don't you explain to all of us how different it is?
He was to speak the words of the song. Does the qualify as speaking or singing?
I reject the entire premise of the question. Singjng, especially corporate singing, would not contradict anything I believe about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I’m willing to entertain the idea if you can make the case.
Do you even know why you are so insistent on women being able to speak in the assembly? Why is this so important to you?
All interesting questions but simply a level past what this thread is about. Especially since you’re wanting to talk about Moses, a man, when we’re talking about women. One more example that you have to search furiously in order to find the barest shred of support for your idea.
The truth is way more complex than this. I defines laws as “Thou Shall/Shall Not” but I don’t think of the Torah as being “Law”. It is teaching as you point out. You’re trying to hold me to a standard you would never hold yourself to.
Yes, if a woman has a man then he will rule over her. It doesn’t say that she must have one. That’s the base assumption under all of your misconceptions. You assume a righteous woman must have a head and so unrighteous women without a head are the ones being prohibited from speaking in the assembly. Correct me if I’m wrong.
What you haven’t done and I have never seen done outside of torturing 1 Corinthians 11, is showing that a woman is REQUIRED to have a head.
That’s pretty much what we’re doing in this thread, showing that the belief you have to have to make 1 Corinthians 11 say what you want it to is unsupported. That verses 4-7 of 1 Corinthians 11 have to be referring to a physical covering or they don’t make sense.
Your alternative view that they mean that women have to have a male head in order to pray or prophesy in the assembly is what’s being dismantled here. We’ve demonstrated pretty conclusively to outside observers that the plain reading of the text means that women can not pray or prophesy in the assembly (the formulation important to the other discussion and what is identified in the title of this thread as the main point of discussion) and that you don’t have any evidence to claim otherwise.
Your talk about authority is all well and good and I agree with a lot of it but that can all be true without effecting the meaning of 1 Corinth 14:34-35, which is, if I’m wrong, one of the most sloppily and confusingly written passages in all of literature. After it all it does say “Your women in the assemblies let them be silent, for it hath not been permitted to them to speak….for it is a shame to women to speak in an assembly.”
I mean you have to admit that if what that was supposed to mean was “women with a head can speak in the assembly if no man is speaking,” then it’s as misleading a paragraph as I’ve ever seen. That would have been much easier to convey directly and without all of the positively declarative and uncompromising sentences.
You can at least admit that right? That an ignorant and unlearned man reads those verses and he’s completely justified in thinking that Paul was trying to say, however inexpertly, that women shouldn’t speak in the assembly. Those are the literal words right?
Last edited:
Short answer NO.
Long answer: Here is why I say no. The key word is "church" or as you put it assembly, so let's take a closer look at that word and in the context of Acts 5:11. To keep this short I am only going to pull out part of the definition. You have a concordance and I assume you know how to use it. Strong's G1577
...or Christian community of members on earth... - assembly, church.
Thayers G1577 We are going to take a look at one particular spot in this definition... 1d4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth...
So when you really look at the context of Acts 5:1-11, they weren't having any kind of teaching, no singing, nothing. They were collecting money of things that were sold, so it wasn't even a Sabbath, as that would be breaking Torah.
So did you take the above out of context? In my opinion, yes.
Luke 2:38 KJV And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
First off I would like to point out that the context begins in v22. YaHshua is presented to the Lord, which I believe is referring to YaHWeH. And there are a few other tid bits, you can read it starting in v22. But I think the key word here in v38 is redemption, and I like how the Thayers puts it..
G3085
λύτρωσις
lutrōsis
Thayer Definition:
1) a ransoming, redemption
2) deliverance, especially from the penalty of sin
I would like to bring attention to number 2, you can see it above. So let me bring this all together now, we have a widow woman, who has devoted herself to the temple, night and day v37. So I am going to assume this widow woman, got to witness the Messiah, who happens to be, our deliverer. She gave thanks, likewise unto the Lord, now mind you I don't think there is a Sabbath meeting or any kind of get together, But she spake of him to all them that looked for redemption (...2) deliverance, especially from the penalty of sin) in Jerusalem.
I hope this makes sense. She is sharing her faith, being a witness, like everyone of us should be, to all those around her.
Yes I believe I can.
The below passages give us great examples of husband/wife relationship, who is in charge and who needs to listen. Do any of the below passages talk about Sabbath meetings, gatherings? No But when you look at the 1 Cor 14:34 passage and what the Treasury of the Scripture Knowledge refer to, this kind of lines up with what Paul is saying.
Genesis 3:16 KJV 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.
Numbers 30:3-13 KJV If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; (4) And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. (5) But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. (6) And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; (7) And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. (8) But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her. (9) But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. (10) And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; (11) And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. (12) But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her. (13) Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.
Esther 1:17-20 KJV For this deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not. (18) Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the king's princes, which have heard of the deed of the queen. Thus shall there arise too much contempt and wrath. (19) If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she. (20) And when the king's decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire, (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small.
And lastly..
Ephesians 5:22-24 KJV Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
When you look at the above passage, and if we are truly obeying our Savior, we will listen when He tells us to speak and when to be silent.
Yes they can. The reason why the definition is the way it is, is because you have to figure out the context of how it is being used in that particular part of the Scriptures.
She was addressed by Peter to see if she was going to be truthful or not.
I think you hit the nail on the head there.So it turns out everyone agrees on the destination, they just argued about which road to take to get there.
I guess I left out my definition of KJV only cult. The KJV only cult says all you need is the Bible to interpret it's self. They say you don't need a concordance, JUST THE BIBLE. And yes I have heard them say that.
As you can see I believe in doing word study's.
Last edited:
Singing doesn't contradict your belief. The things I've shared that a woman can do doesn't contradict my belief. If your willing to say that words cannot be uttered by a woman in the assembly and then also say that singing doesn't go against your belief, then you also realize the absurdity of your first statement.
The body of Christ is a family. We are called to assemble and fellowship and eat and worship together and learn. I have very rarely seen this done. If a woman cant utter a word then these things cannot happen as the scriptures tell us.
I don't assume a righteous woman must have a head. I say she should have a head. We even see that Paul instructs the women with a question to ask their husband at home. I'm not linking 1at Corinthians 11 and 14 together. You have done that. I said a woman should not pray or prophesy without authority on her head. Not a woman should not speak in the assembly without authority on her head.
I don't believe its a requirement, but something that should happen. A woman doesn't receive the same treatment as a covered woman. Vows is one of them, being represented in the assembly is another, and praying and prophesying in the assembly.
I do believe women should have a head and the head should be man. I heard a wise man once say that if you raise chickens and you don't have a rooster, then your hens are a wreck and all over the place. If you raise cows and you have 3 or 4 cows with no bull the cows are a mess, they're making noise and getting in trouble. But you throw one bull out in the field and the whole heard calms down and does what its supposed to do because the feminine was not designed to exist without the masculine. Look at the creation story, God created man without the woman. The man could function without the woman. Then God brought the woman. The feminine without the masculine is like a boat that is rudderless. It has no direction. The feminine has to have the masculine to give it meaning and order. He also said that a woman is like a piece of art and the man like the frame. The frame is the the place the art is hung in. The frame gives the feminine form and borders. If you didn't have a frame the art would lay crumpled on the floor and no one could see the art. You gotta hang it up and frame it before you can even appreciate the art. I happen to agree with this wise man that we shouldn't have a rudderless boat or a piece of art not displayed, that hens need the rooster and that cows need a bull. Woman was created as a helpmate to man. A woman was created for man.
34¶Your women in the assemblies let them be silent, for it hath not been permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith;
35and if they wish to learn anything, at home their own husbands let them question, for it is a shame to women to speak in an assembly.
I believe an ignorant and unlearned man, like myself, would ask what does the law say because that's what Paul pointed to. He might also see that the explanation is that they should ask their own husbands at home and not the man teaching. Then the man would be really confused when all the females were singing since some people teach that they can't utter words unless it's with a melody.
Last edited:
I completely agree with this. But I also believe that you don't have any issue with a woman singing, fellowshipping while eating, or sharing a prayer request while gathered. We are definitely in agreement that when a man is teaching a woman should be quiet and ask her own husband the questions that she has.
Alright, you’re all over the place with this stuff or the conversation has become so muddled you forgot what you said or maybe your beliefs have evolved in which case yay.
So on my way back to the other thread, your contention is that women can speak in the assembly if they have a head?
I have one last question then on this topic and we can set this aside. If a woman with a “covering”, defined as a husband or father, can speak in the assembly then why do they have to ask their questions of their husbands at home? If a married woman can speak in the assembly then why can’t she ask questions of her husband in the assembly, even presumably whispered ones?
My belief, from our other thread, is that its shameful for a woman to pray or prophesy without authority over her head. General speaking was not addressed by me in our other thread. It was addressed by you, in the manner that a woman wouldn't be praying and prophesying because they aren't allowed to even speak in the assembly. I then challenged that idea and you made this thread. Hopefully that makes sense. My contention is that women who have a head can pray or prophesy in the assembly without it being shameful, women without authority over their head should not pray or prophesy in the assembly.
I'm going to back up a little bit to "as it is written in the law (Torah)," just to make sure we're on the same page. I think that Paul is using "nomos" (law) as Jesus does when He speaks of the divisions of the Tanakh/OT (Matt 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; etc.). Even more tellingly He speaks about the law, the prophets and the Psalms (Lk. 22:44) as a sort of short hand to speak of the Law (Torah - all the books of Moses, Nabi'iym - all the prophets, and "Psalms" - the Kethubiym - all of the writings). As an interesting aside that sort of "validates" the Hebrew division of the OT/Tanakh, Jesus says in Matt. 25:25/Lk 11:51:
35 so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (Mat 23:35 NRS)
Abel was the first murder recorded in Genesis (Torah). Zechariah was the last murder recorded in 2 Chronicles (the last book in the writings as recorded in Tanakh (2 Chron 24:20-21). Jesus seems to be using the traditional divisions of the Tanakh.
So my understanding is that when Paul speaks of "the law" he is likewise not just referring to the legislative portions of Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy but all of the narrative portions as well. Thoughts?
35 so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (Mat 23:35 NRS)
Abel was the first murder recorded in Genesis (Torah). Zechariah was the last murder recorded in 2 Chronicles (the last book in the writings as recorded in Tanakh (2 Chron 24:20-21). Jesus seems to be using the traditional divisions of the Tanakh.
So my understanding is that when Paul speaks of "the law" he is likewise not just referring to the legislative portions of Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy but all of the narrative portions as well. Thoughts?
So why does a married woman have to ask her questions of her husband at home? Why can’t she ask a question in the assembly?
35and if they wish to learn anything, at home their own husbands let them question, for it is a shame to women to speak in an assembly.
I see the emphasis on their own husbands. Its not that a woman cant ask her hubby if he wants some more of his beverage while everyone is enjoying the love feast. I see it as your husband is to teach you at home. She should not interrupt the service to be taught and it should be her own husband teaching her. It brings up another interesting question of when do the widows ask questions.
I think you nailed it. Good explanation. I believe Paul sees law as all the narrative portions too. Matthew 5:18 does seem to include the prophets, if for no other reason then verse 17 talking about them.