What does this mean?1 corinthians 14 34

[1965]

1 corinthians 14 34-35

34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If 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.

Thanks in advance!!!

 

[NHInsider]

I’ll be interested to see what people say, here. My understanding is that this is specific to the Corinthian situation-we can see from the letter as a whole that there was a significant problem with disorder in worship. Also against the background of the pagan culture of the city, which was a hotbed of “oracles” generally “speaking” through priestesses.

See also the third chapter of Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, where he speaks to the disorderly behavior of the Corinthian church . . .

 

[Zundrah]

1 corinthians 14 34-35

34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If 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.

Thanks in advance!!!

My minister once told me - the women were seperate from the men. One side of chapel male - one side all female. Apparently the women would shout out to their husbands for answers on queries. I personally don’t believe that though (who would shout out in church?) But seriously… let’s be honest, the writer of this letter is obviously abusing women. Unfortunately, that is common in churches especially back in those days!
Hope women are not hurt by this - remember that jesus did not say that. A human man did but not our Lord christ who loves us unconditionally!

 

[1965]

My minister once told me - the women were seperate from the men. One side of chapel male - one side all female. Apparently the women would shout out to their husbands for answers on queries. I personally don’t believe that though (who would shout out in church?) But seriously… let’s be honest, the writer of this letter is obviously abusing women. Unfortunately, that is common in churches especially back in those days!
Hope women are not hurt by this - remember that jesus did not say that. A human man did but not our Lord christ who loves us unconditionally!

Thanks! Interesting that you mention that jesus did not say that. However, since it is in the Bible which is totally inspired by God. Was this message inspired as well?

 

[OchsFam]

I think this verse plays into the spiritual headship of men. In a spiritual setting, men are meant to lead the assembly. So in the church, men are meant to be the ones teaching and directing, not women. This verse seems to me Biblical proof that only men are meant to be priests.

I do not think that it is saying that women have no right discussing and teaching, but I think this verse is specifically talking about Church assembly, not general discussions. Notice in the preceding passages that there is no mention of sexes when discussing other activities, it is only in reference to the Church women are singled out.

I am sure there will be many responses saying that I am being sexist toward women, so in preparation, I defend myself with this article that explains my view on this without having to start a back and forth discussion in a forum not meant for it.

 

[terrysa]

Unfortunately, I think this means what it says. Remember that St. Paul’s letters were written to advise the fledgling churches, (He probably never dreamed they would become attached to a book like our bible!) and as you know the social norms and expectations toward women were completely different than they are today. It was actually revolutionary for Jews and others of that time that Jesus allowed women disciples! (God Himself sent a wonderful message about women when He chose to come to us through Mary.) Paul was a great man, an instrument of God, but understandably, (though perhaps unfortunately) also a man of his time.

peace and blessings,
Terrysa

 

[Danno2281]

Unfortunately, I think this means what it says. Remember that St. Paul’s letters were written to advise the fledgling churches, (He probably never dreamed they would become attached to a book like our bible!) and as you know the social norms and expectations toward women were completely different than they are today. It was actually revolutionary for Jews and others of that time that Jesus allowed women disciples! (God Himself sent a wonderful message about women when He chose to come to us through Mary.) Paul was a great man, an instrument of God, but understandably, (though perhaps unfortunately) also a man of his time.

peace and blessings,
Terrysa

The Holy Spirit who is the author of those words is not of any time. Does it occur to anyone that the attitude toward women of those days might have had as much validity as ours? What makes us believe that we are more enlightened than they?

 

[Zundrah]

I think this verse plays into the spiritual headship of men. In a spiritual setting, men are meant to lead the assembly. So in the church, men are meant to be the ones teaching and directing, not women. This verse seems to me Biblical proof that only men are meant to be priests.

I do not think that it is saying that women have no right discussing and teaching, but I think this verse is specifically talking about Church assembly, not general discussions. Notice in the preceding passages that there is no mention of sexes when discussing other activities, it is only in reference to the Church women are singled out.

I am sure there will be many responses saying that I am being sexist toward women, so in preparation, I defend myself with this article that explains my view on this without having to start a back and forth discussion in a forum not meant for it.

“only in reference to the Church women are singled out” Hmm, well excuse me but I will not hear this. Christ said love you neighbour. He did not say “34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission.”
Christ said “come to me, all you who labour and are burdened, and I will grant you peace.” How ever he did not say "Women are second rate and should be submissive even if their husbands batter and abuse them. Christ clear single message was; LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS THE FATHER LOVES YOU! He would never say to women “be submissive”. Submission is what a dog does when you kick it! Not women of eve that God made with his own divine and loving hands. Think before you say so little on a very sensitive subject. Some women who read this might have been raped at some point of their lives. So to just say to them “be fully submissive” sounds very malicious and pure evil to me!

 

[NHInsider]

"Submission is what a dog does when you kick it! Not women of eve that God made with his own divine and loving hands. Think before you say so little on a very sensitive subject. Some women who read this might have been raped at some point of their lives. So to just say to them “be fully submissive” sounds very malicious and pure evil to me!

This is a serious problem but the problem is not with the Scripture per se, but with what “submit” and “submissive” mean in current English usage.

It’s worth noting that in another letter (Ephesians 5:21) Paul says (to the community as a whole) “submit TO ONE ANOTHER in love” - and in other places (1 Timothy) uses the same verb to discuss order and hierarchy in the church. So the way Paul uses the verb it is not what a dog does when kicked, it is an intellectual process of assent, and in the context of marriage it is meant to be mutual, respectful and self-giving (see the infamous passage at the end of Ephesians 5, in which the relationship of submission/love between spouses is likened to that between the Church and Christ).

But Zundrah is absolutely right, plenty of wicked men have used this quote to justify acts of cruelty against their wives, and we must always be clear that God does not condone such.

 

[Zundrah]

This is a serious problem but the problem is not with the Scripture per se, but with what “submit” and “submissive” mean in current English usage.

It’s worth noting that in another letter (Ephesians 5:21) Paul says (to the community as a whole) “submit TO ONE ANOTHER in love” - and in other places (1 Timothy) uses the same verb to discuss order and hierarchy in the church. So the way Paul uses the verb it is not what a dog does when kicked, it is an intellectual process of assent, and in the context of marriage it is meant to be mutual, respectful and self-giving (see the infamous passage at the end of Ephesians 5, in which the relationship of submission/love between spouses is likened to that between the Church and Christ).

But Zundrah is absolutely right, plenty of wicked men have used this quote to justify acts of cruelty against their wives, and we must always be clear that God does not condone such.

I am with you in what you are saying, thank you for understanding. But if a wife did submit to her husband and he was a kind, sensitive and a gentle person, that would be okay.
But…
Well, I guess God did say in genesis “It is not good for the man to be alone” and by that he did not mean a friend. Other wise he would just have put another man in there with him. He put eve in there (the first woman). Women are more caring than men, that is a fact. He made men and then said it is not good for him to be alone, then he put some one with him that would raise his children and care for the children AND him. He put men and women together. Woman to love the man, man to protect the woman. This “submission” scripture is easy to take the wrong way. But God put eve there to love him, so men too should give that love back. To submit to some one that would never harm you is okay. But more than many woman are abused by their “husbands” and we should take a strong sense of duty not to let this scripture be used for evil!

 

[NHInsider]

I am with you in what you are saying, thank you for understanding. But if a wife did submit to her husband and he was a kind, sensitive and a gentle person, that would be okay.
But…
Well, I guess God did say in genesis “It is not good for the man to be alone” and by that he did not mean a friend. Other wise he would just have put another man in there with him. He put eve in there (the first woman). Women are more caring than men, that is a fact. He made men and then said it is not good for him to be alone, then he put some one with him that would raise his children and care for the children AND him. He put men and women together. Woman to love the man, man to protect the woman. This “submission” scripture is easy to take the wrong way. But God put eve there to love him, so men too should give that love back. To submit to some one that would never harm you is okay. But more than many woman are abused by their “husbands” and we should take a strong sense of duty not to let this scripture be used for evil!

Indeed. In fact your Genesis reference points to another frequently mis-used quote: people think that the Lord said He would make a “helpmate” for the man, when in fact the word is “help-meet” where “meet” means appropriate or having similar status.

 

[dancny]

First I have to say that while a “man” may have written the words on the paper the inspiration came from God, unless you are willing to refute thje entire bible and question it’s authority.

The problem came in where Greek women were assuming roles of leadership in the church, specifically in Corinth. It is a cultural differance between the Jewish church of the time and the Greek church. The Corinthian worship service was more of a friendly dinner party than a reverant worship of God. Think of a pot luck during mass. Paul is attempting to set some guidelines on how to worship reverantly and Clement followed this a short time later.

In keeping with the other christian churches there were to be no women ministers and no women leading the church. That has always been a role reserved for men. SO Paul enjoined women to take a different role. Women were to be the teachers of women converts for several obvious reasons. Basically, we were not to be ordered on the style of a pagan temple, we were something new.

As for submissveness, It has never been the intent of the church for a woman to live in a situation where she was in danger. The passages on submisivness have been misused at times, but it was never intended to allow abuse.

 

[OchsFam]

"Hmm, well excuse me but I will not hear this. Christ said love you neighbour. He did not say “34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission.”
Christ said “come to me, all you who labour and are burdened, and I will grant you peace.” How ever he did not say "Women are second rate and should be submissive even if their husbands batter and abuse them. Christ clear single message was; LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS THE FATHER LOVES YOU! He would never say to women “be submissive”. Submission is what a dog does when you kick it! Not women of eve that God made with his own divine and loving hands. Think before you say so little on a very sensitive subject. Some women who read this might have been raped at some point of their lives. So to just say to them “be fully submissive” sounds very malicious and pure evil to me!

Did you read my post? What are you talking about? I in no way even hinted that women are second rate and I in no way associated women with general submission. If you are going to quote my post and attack it, please at least read it. I was specifically talking about 1 Cor 14, not the entire Bible. This thread is not about the role of women in an overall scheme of life and I am not going to post on that. I was pointing out that this verse seems to be specifically associated to the Church’s organization.

In regards to what Christ said and did not say, 1 Cor 14 says “women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission” not me. God established men as leaders of the Church, not me. Even if this verse does not mean what I think it means, this Truth is still evident in Scripture. If you have a problem with this, at least argue with God, not me. These are the words of the Holy Spirit and they carry every bit as much weight as the quotes of Christ himself. If you have a problem with this, take it up with God and continue your argument with Him, not me.

I spoke on Church organization and you accuse me of talking of the general submission of women. You have absolutely no right to interpret what I posted in that way. I know you are accustomed to interpreting things in your own way without regard to the intent of the author, but that does not make it correct. You do not know me and my post in no way, shape or form speaks of women as submissive dogs and it cannot even be interpreted as such.

When I make a mistake in a post, I admit it. I do not feel I have said anything offensive to women and so I do not apologize. God used the words that mention women being submissive, not me. There are criteria for men as well that involve being crucified for our spouses. Again, these are things God has said and if you do not accept them because you do not understand them, this is not my fault so do not attack me.

I pray God opens your eyes to His scripture and reveals His message to you. If you believe a valid argument is that “Christ did not say it, Paul did”, than you truly have a deep misunderstanding of Sacred Scripture. Each letter is infallible and carries the weight of God. Your acceptance of it does not negate its truth.

I am insulted that you associate me with a statement that women are second rate. There is a reason I put a link to an article discussing just that in my first post. If you wish to attack men who devalue women, that is your prerogative. You do not have any right to attack someone who did no such thing just to put your two cents in on the abuse of women by men. I love my wife and I believe women and men are equals, but we do have different roles in life. In this case, men are meant to be the spiritual leaders like it or not. If you want to discuss that, start another thread. This thread is meant to discuss 1 Cor 14:34 only, not the overall purpose of women and the wrongs men have imparted upon them throughout history.

God Bless.

 

[Zundrah]

Well OchsFan,
As for this statement of yours; “I love my wife and I believe women and men are equals, **but **we do have different roles in life. In this case, men are meant to be the spiritual leaders like it or not.”

Hmmm, this sounds very affectionate and equal to me…

“I believe women and men are equals” - “but we do have different roles in life”
“In this case” - “men are meant to be the spiritual leaders like it or not.”

“Like it or not”? Well, do you like it…? I think you know what I’d say…

And as for this, respectively,

“I know you are accustomed to interpreting things in your own way without regard to the intent of the author”

Well God did make us unique in every way and we are filled with perseptions since we are humans after all. Every one does this, and obviously including you.
Look in the book of mathew; The most (name removed by moderator)ortant rule of all. “Love your neighbour.” As said by christ him self.
I’m not going to argue with you.

 

[tobinatorstark]

1 corinthians 14 34-35

34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If 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.

Thanks in advance!!!

From the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 34. Let women be silent, and not speak at all in public Church-meetings: and if they would ask any thing, let them ask it at home. (Witham)

 

[Lisa44]

From the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 34. Let women be silent, and not speak at all in public Church-meetings: and if they would ask any thing, let them ask it at home. (Witham)

Hi tobinatorstark

I asked a Priest if I could ask him a question and he told me to ask my husband. So, yes, taking it one step further, I concluded that women are not supposed to talk except to their husbands on matters of faith, much less speak publically in church.

 

[Lisa44]

From the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 34. Let women be silent, and not speak at all in public Church-meetings: and if they would ask any thing, let them ask it at home. (Witham)

Hi tobinatorstark

I asked a Priest if I could ask him a question, and he told me to ask my husband. So, yes, taking it one step further, I concluded that women are not supposed to talk except to their husbands on matters of faith, much less speak publically in church.

 

[1965]

Hi tobinatorstark

I asked a Priest if I could ask him a question, and he told me to ask my husband. So, yes, taking it one step further, I concluded that women are not supposed to talk except to their husbands on matters of faith, much less speak publically in church.

Hi Lisa44

That is rather strange comment from the Priest. What if your husband doesn’t have no faith or little faith. Is a woman supposed to listen to him?

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa44

That is rather strange comment from the Priest. What if your husband doesn’t have no faith or little faith. Is a woman supposed to listen to him?

I know, that’s what I said to myself.

(and sorry for the double post)

 

[Cashue]

1 corinthians 14 34-35

34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If 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.

Thanks in advance!!!

It doesn’t mean anything. At least not for todays christians, it was just speaking about the people that lived thousands of years ago. God left this in the bible to show us how things have changed.