Women should keep silent??? 1Corinth14:34-35

[centurionguard]

Even today men should keep quiet too, unless saying prayers!! Not just women.

Your right…men too gossip like women.

But in all seriousness I despise gender wars.
Who in their right mind is going to pick an argument with God as to whether either gender man or woman be lesser than the other?

It easy for some to take biblical scripture readings completely out of context.

1 PETER - Chapter 3

1 In *like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands: that if any believe not the word, they may be gained without the word, by the conversation of the wives,

2 Considering your chaste conversation with fear.

3 *Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel:

4 But the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God:

5 For after this manner heretofore also the holy women, hoping in God, adorned themselves, being subject to their own husbands.

6 *As Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well, and not fearing any trouble.

7 *Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the woman, as to the weaker vessel, and as to the coheirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered.

8 And finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, loving the brotherhood, merciful, modest, humble:

9 *Not rendering evil for evil, nor railing for railing; but on the contrary, blessing: for unto this are you called, that you may inherit a blessing.

10 *For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile.

11 *Let him decline from evil, and do good: let him seek peace, and pursue it:

12 Because the eyes of the Lord are upon the just, and his ears unto their prayers: but the countenance of the Lord against them that do evil things.

I believe too if one reads Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition. on 1 PETER - Chapter 3 helps make a far better explanation without taking verses out of context. haydock1859.tripod.com/id267.html

 

[Zundrah]

I don’t have any links off hand but I remember being taught this was a condemnation due to a cultural problem.

From what I was told women were prone to speaking up during services to ask their husbands (who sat across the room) what the Rabbi meant. Since women were not allowed to sit with men and they were a rooms width apart the women had to shout to be heard. This was such a disruption that Paul had to admonish this behavior.

But that’s what my Methodist minister use to say, and that is what they use to tell us as to why they think female clerics are okay.

 

[NiceMimi]

I trust that the meaning of 1Corinth14:34-35 was cultural, as mentioned earlier.

I dread to think what the world would be like if Mary had remained silent when asked if she would be willing to be the mother of Our Savior, or remained silent when the wine ran out at the wedding. Her one act of faith prompted the first recorded miracle that Jesus performed ------ at a sacred event, a wedding, no less. Yes, I dread to think what the world would be like if many of women throughout history had remained silent.

 

[nickybr38]

But that’s what my Methodist minister use to say, and that is what they use to tell us as to why they think female clerics are okay.

I haven’t always been Catholic.

This is the explanation I was given when I was Protestant.

They may use this as the reason why women clerics are all right but I would ask them why Jesus did not appoint a female Apostle in the elite twelve. He had the power right then and there to ordain a female and he didn’t. So why didn’t he?

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

It easy for some to take biblical scripture readings completely out of context.

There’s a passage about God forgiving and forgetting our past transgressions. I can’t remember which one it is. Ask my husband. He likes to quote it verbatim whenever I bring up the time he…



Luna

 

[BlindManWalking]

Culture and context truly only works in descriptive passages, not passages which command certain things.

By the logic displayed by some here, none of the Bible is pertinent and it’s just a collection of aphorisms.

" I heard", “they said”, etc.

Where’s the proof? In the pudding of course.

If he meant gossip, he’d have said gossip. If he meant gossip, he also meant that the husbands should then, at home, relay gossip. Uhhhh

He very clearly meant that women shouldn’t be speaking in church.

St. John Chrysostom got it: sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/112/1120041.htm

 

[Barbra67]

It is also mentioned that women can pray & forecast in church.

But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved.{1 Corinthians
11:5}

 

[Zundrah]

I haven’t always been Catholic.

This is the explanation I was given when I was Protestant.

They may use this as the reason why women clerics are all right but I would ask them why Jesus did not appoint a female Apostle in the elite twelve. He had the power right then and there to ordain a female and he didn’t. So why didn’t he?

They said that because of the way things were back then, if they had a woman appointed, she wouldn’t be listened to.

 

[nickybr38]

They said that because of the way things were back then, if they had a woman appointed, she wouldn’t be listened to.

I say ; Nonsense. Perhaps the Jewish followers wouldn’t have listened but there were female clerics in those times as well as male.

Way I see it, Jesus wasn’t too interested in what man wanted. He did what God wanted and had God wanted female Apostles there would have been a female Apostle.

I encourage you to read the Gospels closely. Tell me if you think Jesus was the sort to cow tow to cultural norms.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

OK - so I’m in a process of reading the scriptures, and this sticks out at me. This doesn’t fit well with my understanding of the Church or Christ. I don’t understand this verse at first glance.

Can someone point me to some good commentary on this?

Thanks!

:angel1:
Hi and welcome! I understand the confusion this sometimes causes. What helps me on this is another very important scripture: “Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven…whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” I take from this the fact that the Magisterium of the Church now welcomes women as lectors, teachers, Religious Sisters,:nun1: and all manner of dignified places in our Holy Church. Down through the ages, The Church has evolved within its traditions, to now welcome us in a more expansive way.

Some members of the early Church had some cultural beliefs about women that we do not share today. Some people of course, are impatient and demand further that we be allowed to enter the Priesthood, which is not the subject here. When the scripture you mention (about dis-allowing women speaking at all) comes up, I believe we can point to the fact that The Church now certainly not only allows our speaking up, but welcomes our contributions. I believe Our Lady, The Blessed Virgin Mary,:harp: is pleased with this!

 

[exnihilo]

‘Women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.’

This seems the more difficult part to explain away as being cultural.

I cam across several related verses while I was skimming Proverbs this morning. My favorite is 11:22.

My favorite is Proverbs 25:24

‘Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.’

Culture and context truly only works in descriptive passages, not passages which command certain things.

By the logic displayed by some here, none of the Bible is pertinent and it’s just a collection of aphorisms.

That is the danger. To be sure some parts of Scripture are not binding on us today. But we have to be very careful to not dismiss too quickly wisdom that does not comport with modern thinking.

 

[NiceMimi]

Way I see it, Jesus wasn’t too interested in what man wanted. He did what God wanted and had God wanted female Apostles there would have been a female Apostle.

.

Jesus DID have a female Apostle! In fact, Jesus’ first Apostle was a woman: That was Mary, his mother! She was the first to believe in Jesus even before he was conceived and born. She was there for Jesus’ first miracle, and she was the first one to also show faith when she urged others to do as Jesus told them to do.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

‘Women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.’

This seems the more difficult part to explain away as being cultural.

My favorite is Proverbs 25:24

‘Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.’
**
I think many would add “or a quarrelsome husband.” **

That is the danger. To be sure some parts of Scripture are not binding on us today. But we have to be very careful to not dismiss too quickly wisdom that does not comport with modern thinking.

Thank God our wise Church Fathers have, down through the ages, decided to allow all manner of holy women to speak: :angel1:St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Elizabeth Anne Seton, countless Religious Sisters, lectors, teachers etc. to speak, so that we need no longer worry. Again, Our Blessed Mother is quite pleased:harp:

 

[nickybr38]

Jesus DID have a female Apostle! In fact, Jesus’ first Apostle was a woman: That was Mary, his mother! She was the first to believe in Jesus even before he was conceived and born. She was there for Jesus’ first miracle, and she was the first one to also show faith when she urged others to do as Jesus told them to do.

She was not one of the twelve. She was a follower of Christ, perhaps even a disciple, but not one of the chosen twelve. Which, I believe, were the first priests.

Just my opinion though. I haven’t studied the Catholic understanding of this. This is just what I learned as a Protestant.

 

[exnihilo]

Thank God our wise Church Fathers have, down through the ages, decided to allow all manner of holy women to speak: St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Elizabeth Anne Seton, countless Religious Sisters, lectors, teachers etc. to speak, so that we need no longer worry. Again, Our Blessed Mother is quite pleased

Yes, but where and how they speak is important. The church wouldn’t let me speak during Mass. The church wouldn’t let me speak the part of the priest. There are limitations for everyone.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Yes, but where and how they speak is important. The church wouldn’t let me speak during Mass. The church wouldn’t let me speak the part of the priest. There are limitations for everyone.

Not the point: The original poster was quoting the scripture saying that women are not to speak in the Church, period. This has greatly changed. As a Catholic woman, I think not of “limitations” at all, but of our special calling, with the example of The Blessed Virgin Mother a very joyous one.* Each beloved child of God, male or female, then, need not think of limitations,* but of his or her unique calling. Another well known scripture: “Let everything be done decently and in order” is not a limitation, but a joyous call to unity.

 

[NiceMimi]

She was not one of the twelve. She was a follower of Christ, perhaps even a disciple, but not one of the chosen twelve. Which, I believe, were the first priests.

Just my opinion though. I haven’t studied the Catholic understanding of this. This is just what I learned as a Protestant.

Though I am not a Biblical expert, I understand that there are Biblical scholars out there who concur with the opinion that Mary is one of the original disciples because she was the first to believe in Jesus and agreed to give birth to him.

Mary was a chosen disciple by God, the Father. So, Christ did not have too choose her because she had already been chosen, and was doing the job God had set out for her. Even in Acts, there is discussion that the role of disciples may even include duties that are considered lowly jobs. The jobs, though, are important because they are in support of spreading the Word of God. Of course, Mary’s job was and continues to be quite important — though, some may not consider motherhood and the duties it entails important.

 

[nickybr38]

Though I am not a Biblical expert, I understand that there are Biblical scholars out there who concur with the opinion that Mary is one of the original disciples because she was the first to believe in Jesus and agreed to give birth to him.

Mary was a chosen disciple by God, the Father. So, Christ did not have too choose her because she had already been chosen, and was doing the job God had set out for her. Even in Acts, there is discussion that the role of disciples may even include duties that are considered lowly jobs. The jobs, though, are important because they are in support of spreading the Word of God. Of course, Mary’s job was and continues to be quite important — though, some may not consider motherhood and the duties it entails important.

Disciple and Apostle = two different things. I am not arguing that she was a disciple. I am pointing out that she was not one of the chosen twelve.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/1-corinthians/14.html?p=7

Bible Study ToolsOur LibraryCommentariesMatthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete)1 Corinthians1 Corinthians 14
1 Corinthians 14

*
*
*
*
*
*

Verses 34-35 Here the apostle, 1. Enjoins silence on their women in public assemblies, and to such a degree that they must not ask questions for their own information in the church, but ask their husbands at home. They are to learn in silence with all subjection; but, says the apostle, I suffer them not to teach, 1 Tim. 2:11, 1 Tim. 2:12 . There is indeed an intimation ch. 11:5 ) as if the women sometimes did pray and prophecy in their assemblies, which the apostle, in that passage, does not simply condemn, but the manner of performance, that is, praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, which, in that age and country, was throwing off the distinction of sexes, and setting themselves on a level with the men. But here he seems to forbid all public performances of theirs. They are not permitted to speak (v. 34) in the church, neither in praying nor prophesying. The connection seems plainly to include the latter, in the limited sense in which it is taken in this chapter, namely, for preaching, or interpreting scripture by inspiration. And, indeed, for a woman to prophesy in this sense were to teach, which does not so well befit her state of subjection. A teacher of others has in that respect a superiority over them, which is not allowed the woman over the man, nor must she therefore be allowed to teach in a congregation: I suffer them not to teach. But praying, and uttering hymns inspired, were not teaching. And seeing there were women who had spiritual gifts of this sort in that age of the church (see Acts. 22:9 ), and might be under this impulse in the assembly, must they altogether suppress it? Or why should they have this gift, if it must never be publicly exercised?

For these reasons, some think that these general prohibitions are only to be understood in common cases; but that upon extraordinary occasions, when women were under a divine afflatus, and known to be so, they might have liberty of speech. They were not ordinarily to teach, nor so much as to debate and ask questions in the church, but learn in silence there; and, if difficulties occurred, ask their own husbands at home.** Note, As it is the woman’s duty to learn in subjection, it is the man’s duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her; if it be her duty to ask her husband at home, it is his concern and duty to endeavour at lest to be able to answer her enquiries; if it be a shame for her to speak in the church, where she should be silent, it is a shame for him to be silent when he should speak, and not be able to give an answer, when she asks him at home. **
2. We have here the reason of this injunction: It is God’s law and commandment that they should be under obedience (v. 34); they are placed in subordination to the man, and it is a shame for them to do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing ranks, which speaking in public seemed to imply, at least in that age, and among that people, as would public teaching much more: so that the apostle concludes it was a shame for women to speak in the church, in the assembly. Shame is the mind’s uneasy reflection on having done an indecent thing. And what more indecent than for a woman to quit her rank, renounce the subordination of her sex, or do what in common account had such aspect and appearance? Note, Our spirit and conduct should be suitable to our rank. The natural distinctions God has made, we should observe. Those he has placed in subjection to others should not set themselves on a level, nor affect or assume superiority. The woman was made subject to the man, and she should keep her station and be content with it. For this reason women must be silent in the churches, not set up for teachers; for this is setting up for superiority over the man.

This line of reasoning clearly contradicts the idea that women are equal to men.
This sort of reasoning can also (as it has been in the past) be used to justify slavery.

 

[exnihilo]

This line of reasoning clearly contradicts the idea that women are equal to men.

What do you mean by equality? In many and important ways women and men are not equal. The easiest one that no one can deny is women can carry and bear children. From a Christian point of view the fact that God chose to create both men and women and make them substantially different is important because God does not do things by accident. Of course if looked at from the materialist point of view the issue is irrelevant since there is nothing immaterial and therefore inequality is not unjust or wrong.