"Women forbidden to speak in church"

[Matthias123]

(I CORINTHIANS 15:5 ) Thus I likewise tech in all the churches of the saints. Let women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted them to speak, but let them be submissive, as the Law also says. But if they wish to learn anything let them ask their husbands at home, for it is unseemly for a woman to speak in church.

What does this refer to? It is just saying that Women may not be priest? Does this mean women may not do readings at mass?

Or is this supposed to be taken literally in which women cannot talk at all during mass?

I ask this question extremely carefully because I don’t want to appear to be sexist.

I find this passage quite strange.

 

[runandsew]

That was a cultural ban on women speaking in church.
The same with women having to cover their heads.
This doesn’t apply to us today.
But with that said, it doesn’t mean that women can be priests.

 

[Tedster]

That was a cultural ban on women speaking in church.The same with women having to cover their heads. This doesn’t apply to us today.

What are your references? When did the Church declare these “cultural bans” and what documents say that they don’t apply today? Just curious.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That was a cultural ban on women speaking in church.
The same with women having to cover their heads.
This doesn’t apply to us today.
But with that said, it doesn’t mean that women can be priests.

And would you also agree that admonitions for wives to be subordinate or submissive to their husbands was also cultural and no longer applying to us? And if not, why not?

 

[Syele]

If you read that whole passage you can see that the women in question were causing trouble and then were told to not speak in church. For that reason it seems clear to me that it was those specific women, not women everywhere for all time.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is my response generally to the misogynistic language found in certain parts of Paul and also in 1Peter: I posted this today on essentially the same topic but a different thread.

I read Paul from a historical critical point of view. The household was the first bastion of Roman power in the empire. Households were typically in the Roman world, as well as certainly the Greek world, run by the male head. Women and slaves obeyed that male head.

We know that Paul’s letters were sent to quell problems that were being encountered in a particular church. Often, and as I understand it usually, converts to this new Chritianity were the women and slaves and freed workers for the household. If anyone didn’t convert, it typically was the male head of household.

Now these new converts took very seriously Paul’s statements that all were equal before God in this new Chritianity. There was no more male/female, slave/free, alien/citizen. All were of equal standing. When converts started to act equal, this not only disturbed the individual male in the household, but also the govt of Rome.

Paul’s apparent mysogynist language is, I would argue to be read as proscriptive rather than description. He was asking members to respect and follow the Roman practice of kyriocentric power within their household and within the Church. This was we think not the way Paul really felt, but was an attempt by him to forstall persecution of the Church by not upsetting the home setting.

Anyone who knows either Roman or Greek history knows that it was extremely paternalistic in its organizaiton. Greece, touted as the first real democracy did not of course extend any rights to women or slaves at all. They were not equals, and not invited to participate in govt. Thus the Christian movement,. with its special emphasis on equality of its members was quite threatening. We believe Paul recognized this threat and dealt with it in the fashion alluded to in scripture.

These texts have historically been difficult for women and other marginalized persons for good reason. They seem to suggest that Paul was carrying on the long tradition of domination so well known in Rome and the outlying regions. The questioni is was Paul justified in this or did he compromise Chrisitian principles for a good end? I’m not sure we will ever know.

I believe completely that Jesus’ message was and is one of equality for all.

---

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Isnt it actually 1 Corinthians 14:43-35??

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

I heard a protestant speaker explain that the passage in the original Greek said “women’s talk” which would mean gossip in modern english so in essence Paul is banning gossip

 

[Matthias123]

Thanks for the great answers.

God bless.

 

[deb1]

Paul’s letter was written to a Greek church. Married women in Greek society had life much more restrictive then either Roman or Jewish women-believe it or not.

A married woman could be forced to remain at home if her husband didn’t allow her to leave.

Many of the converts to Christianity were females who were not used to meeting in large groups. Of course, they wanted to talk to one another. Paul is simply saying don’t speak up during a meeting. He was trying to prevent chaos.

Why does anyone get upset by this verse? No one should talk up in a meeting. Can you imagine how horrible it would be if we all started shouting out questions to the priest during his homily?

The bible needs to be read as a whole. Remember Paul wrote verses about women prophesying. If he allowed women to prophesies, which entails speech, why would he contradict himself by telling them not to talk?

It only makes sense that he was discussing an isolated problem with the women in Corinthians.

 

[deb1]

These texts have historically been difficult for women and other marginalized persons for good reason. They seem to suggest that Paul was carrying on the long tradition of domination so well known in Rome and the outlying regions. The questioni is was Paul justified in this or did he compromise Chrisitian principles for a good end? I’m not sure we will ever know.

I believe completely that Jesus’ message was and is one of equality for all.

---

I don’t believe that Paul’s message is difficult when all his letters are taken together as a** whole**. When people begin taking verses out of context or not looking at the society that the early Christians had to deal with then it becomes very easy to misinterpret Paul.

AN interesting side note, my girls wanted to learn about ancient Greece. We homeschool so I picked several books to read to them. They have both decided that they would not want to live during this time period as girls. I can’t blame them.

Christianity compared to much of the surronding culture during Paul’s time was very pro female.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I don’t believe that Paul’s message is difficult when all his letters are taken together as a** whole**. When people begin taking verses out of context or not looking at the society that the early Christians had to deal with then it becomes very easy to misinterpret Paul.

AN interesting side note, my girls wanted to learn about ancient Greece. We homeschool so I picked several books to read to them. They have both decided that they would not want to live during this time period as girls. I can’t blame them.

Christianity compared to much of the surronding culture during Paul’s time was very pro female.

I might agree with you, and I of course always agree with any interpretation that does not suggest that women are subordinate to men, but of course its quite clear from both Paul and Peter that there was a call for this.

Many scholars make serious attempts to explain away Paul’s statements as does the Church, which suggests it is an embarassment. Feminist theologians have indeed spent a good deal of time with these texts as well. The best analysis I’ve seen is what I posted above. I think it is more correct than not. I do believe that Paul made the famous statement of all be equal before Jesus, but I do feel that he compromised in order to keep quiet the rumbings of Roman might that these Christian women are not acting properly.

 

[mdgspencer]

I don’t think we can be certain exactly what this passage means, though we can consider possibilities.
Still, women are to be silent there in one way today. They are not allowed to give sermons, since only priests can. Perhaps it can be explained along this sort of line.
I agree that it does not mean that women can or cannot be priests, since it seems to refer to another matter altogether

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I don’t think we can be certain exactly what this passage means, though we can consider possibilities.
Still, women are to be silent there in one way today. They are not allowed to give sermons, since only priests can. Perhaps it can be explained along this sort of line.
I agree that it does not mean that women can or cannot be priests, since it seems to refer to another matter altogether

I think you are quite right. We may never definitely know. The best we can do is to try to immerse ourselves in that society as best we can and see what were the norms and practices. That is exactly why I find historical criticism so useful, in helping to decode what was really going on. When you look at Paul as a whole, that’s when the contradictions become their starkest. In any given letter they have a certain sense I guess, along the usual lines of trying to explain that Paul was indeed not misogynistic. Another idea is that of course there may be inbedded code we are unaware of. Certainly we know that was true in Revelation. Babylon was code word for Rome which of course couldn’t be written down as such, lest it fall into the hands of Rome itself. It remains a fascinating topic.

 

[rpp]

This is my response generally to the misogynistic language found in certain parts of Paul and also in 1Peter: I posted this today on essentially the same topic but a different thread.

So, God’s word is misogynistic?

So God is misogynist?

But he created women and men.

Perhaps you are seeing misogyny where it does not really exist.

There is no misogyny in Holy Scripture. But there are a lot of people who like to discredit the Bible and even more who foolishly follow along.

This is true in the veiled references to Ephesians 5 as well as the admonition in the OP to be quiet at Mass.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

1 Corinthians 14:34
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

Hi all, we should not divorce chapter 15 from chapter 14, nor ignore the culture that the Corinthians were living in. Basically, in the mystry religions women were the seers who recieved the mystries of the goddesses and basically led the false worship thereof. I think both passages together in context, was simply trying to set the church at corinth apart from the practices in these mystry religions there. You do not see paul giving the same advice to other churches where there was not a problem with mystry religions of that nature. In Eph, Paul speaks about marriage to counter similar problems that the mystry religions would cause there. Basically, I think Paul is making a distinction between false worship of the mystry religions vs true worship in the church. Women did have some places of authority in the early church as deaconesses, and widows teaching the younger women. I think in threads like this we need to focus on a more complete picture of women in the early church.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Sacred Scripture is infallible Divine Revelation, and is relevant to every person and every generation. Therefore the following interpretations cannot be correct:

1. any interpretation which concludes that the verse is irrelevant today, as if Divine Revelation, in any part, has lost its meaning
2. any interpretation which claims that any part of Scripture is an expression of the sinfulness of the human author, as if sin prevailed over inspiration to any extent
3. any interpretation which claims that any part of Scripture is merely an expression of culture, or of the personal views of the author, as if every part were not divinely inspired.

However, I don’t think that the correct interpretation need be entirely literal. Women are to be silent in the sense of not taking certain roles given only to men within the Church, thus they are not to speak from a role of authority, leadership, or teaching that is given only to men. But they can certainly participate in the Mass by praying outloud and singing and speaking to one another at the sign of peace. So being mute is not the meaning of the verse.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So, God’s word is misogynistic?

So God is misogynist?

No, but Paul’s definitely was. Take a quick look through even apologetic commentaries and you will find every effort made to tone down what Paul’s meaning. This is commonly known in the scholarly community. If you don’t care for that kind of analysis, then you should probably refrain from reading it.

But he created women and men.

Perhaps you are seeing misogyny where it does not really exist.

Yes God did create men and women. And you are giving me way too much credit. I’d never make such a statement on my own. I am relating the opinion of many many biblical scholars and exegetes. I just happen to agree. This is nothing new. Women have had difficulty with Paul’s letters from time immemorial. Step into most religious congregations today and you will learn this. I was in close contact with two congregations, the Sisters of St. Joseph and the Domnicans, and sisters in both expressed their dismay with Paul.

There is no misogyny in Holy Scripture. But there are a lot of people who like to discredit the Bible and even more who foolishly follow along.

No one is discrediting the bible. Paul was writing letters to established churches who were dealing with specific problems. He chose a solution which is definitely misogynistic on its face. As I said before we are unclear whether Paul actually meant this or not. Perhaps there was imbedded code which said…“you are right but lighten up until Rome gets off our back.” We just don’t know. Paul had no idea his letters would later be determined to be scripture.

This is true in the veiled references to Ephesians 5 as well as the admonition in the OP to be quiet at Mass.

Sorry, I’m not sure what you are alluding to here.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

1 Corinthians 14:34
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

Hi all, we should not divorce chapter 15 from chapter 14, nor ignore the culture that the Corinthians were living in. Basically, in the mystry religions women were the seers who recieved the mystries of the goddesses and basically led the false worship thereof. I think both passages together in context, was simply trying to set the church at corinth apart from the practices in these mystry religions there. You do not see paul giving the same advice to other churches where there was not a problem with mystry religions of that nature. In Eph, Paul speaks about marriage to counter similar problems that the mystry religions would cause there. Basically, I think Paul is making a distinction between false worship of the mystry religions vs true worship in the church. Women did have some places of authority in the early church as deaconesses, and widows teaching the younger women. I think in threads like this we need to focus on a more complete picture of women in the early church.

Interesting post. I was unaware of the mystery religion component. Could you direct me to anything wherein I can read more fully? Also do you believe this also true of similar admonishments in 1Peter? But thanks, good post.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sacred Scripture is infallible Divine Revelation, and is relevant to every person and every generation. Therefore the following interpretations cannot be correct:

1. any interpretation which concludes that the verse is irrelevant today, as if Divine Revelation, in any part, has lost its meaning
2. any interpretation which claims that any part of Scripture is an expression of the sinfulness of the human author, as if sin prevailed over inspiration to any extent
3. any interpretation which claims that any part of Scripture is merely an expression of culture, or of the personal views of the author, as if every part were not divinely inspired

What is your authority please? I seems that recent popes have been violating this. We are told we are to take into account that certain things are expressions of cultural views held by the author. .

However, I don’t think that the correct interpretation need be entirely literal. Women are to be silent in the sense of not taking certain roles given only to men within the Church, thus they are not to speak from a role of authority, leadership, or teaching that is given only to men. But they can certainly participate in the Mass by praying outloud and singing and speaking to one another at the sign of peace. So being mute is not the meaning of the verse.

Again, what is your authority for this interpretation? Is it your own?