The following passage has given rise to a host of different views:  "34: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35: And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor. 14).  William Henderson and Gary Reed (not their real names) are known in the community of those who hold the view that the covering of I Corinthians 11 is binding on all women today.  Most proponents of the covering position also teach that "Let your women keep silence in the churches...for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" has general application without contextual modification.  One reason they hold this position is because they see no peculiar teaching and role relative to the prophetesses of chapter eleven and they believe I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is precluding the prophetess from speaking in the assembly.  The following exchange attempts to set forth the real intent of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 and test the main views that are taught pertaining to the passage.  The exchange began by each of the three participates providing an exegesis of the passage under examination.  While I do provide the same material below in my exegesis of the passage, I do recommend you first read the material at the following internal link:  I Corinthians 14: 34, 35, An Exposition (click on to visit). 

Don Martin to William Henderson, Gary Reed and the list:

We have been attempting to work out the logistics for an exchange on I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. William has made the following suggestion and has mentioned that we follow alphabetical order with me first publishing an article covering the following:

William wrote:

1. Let's EACH write an exegesis on I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 which can include any argumentation based on any part of the chapter (or other verses, remote texts, etc) with specific emphasis on

(a) WHO ARE:
- the "...YOUR WOMEN..." of verse 34?
- the "...THEM to speak..." in verse 34?
- the "...THEY are commanded to be under obedience..."? in verse 34
- the "...if THEY will learn..."? verse 35
- the "...ask THEIR husbands..."? verse 35
- the "...shame for WOMEN to speak..."? verse 35
and,
(b) what does the teaching of verse 34, 35 mean (what is the proper application) with regards to people living today?

Don here:

Gary Reed has commented:

Or if you two think this is going to be logistically difficult, I'll just post my thoughts to the list and you two can proceed as you see fit, and I'll comment on your posts if I'm so inclined.

Don comments:

I anticipate that William and Gary will do an outstanding job. It has been a long time since I have had an exchange with Gary Reed and I look forward to it. Gary is very capable, a good thinker and is able to articulate well his thoughts in writing. As I have said, I believe William and Gary will hold essentially the same view on I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. I also know that we each will focus on the issue and not on each other as far as personalities, etc. are concerned.

Don Martin to William Henderson, Gary Reed, and the list (post one of two):

In our exchange on I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 it has been suggested that we each submit an exegesis of the passage. It is my understanding that Gary Reed will now present his and then William Henderson. After these submissions, we each will ask probative questions of the others that will be designed to challenge and make known our different understanding and application of the passage. I have as concisely as possible approached the passage.

Here is my exegesis of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35:

"I Corinthians 14: 34, 34, An Exposition"

I suppose that relative to every truth, there are extremes. Extremes are not seen on God's part, but they enter in as a result of man. Man's failures to correctly understand and teach God's word are the product of many things. Some having a preconceived idea only use the Bible in an effort to support their belief, some approach the scriptures with attendant bad study practices, and some set out to deliberately distort the word of God (Matt. 13: 15; 2 Tim. 2: 15; 2 Pet. 2: 1). In addition to these cases, some verses are admittedly difficult and require extra care in effecting a correct exegesis (cp. 2 Pet. 3: 16). One passage that has certainly had its share of abuse is I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. The passage reads as follows:

"34: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35: And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor. 14).

On one end of the spectrum, we have the teaching today that women may serve as preachers and elders in the Lord's church (cp. I Tim. 2: 12; I Tim. 3: 1ff.). The antithetical position is women are not even allowed to speak in the assembly. We are told that I Corinthians 14 verses 34, 35 preclude even speech on the part of godly women in the assembly. Some present I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 in a way that manifestly contradicts what Paul taught in I Corinthians 11: 4-16 regarding the prophetesses and how they were to "pray or prophesy." One view is that after telling the prophetesses how to do what they were doing in public places in chapter eleven, Paul now decides to change his teaching and tell the prophetesses to be silent in the assembly. Some have introduced these two texts as an example of ambivalence and indecision. Others, based on I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 have concluded that public places such as the assembly were not included in the text of I Corinthians 11: 3-16. If this be the case, how could there have been the doing of the same thing and in the same circumstance that occasioned the need for the head covering enjoined by Paul in the case of the prophetesses (I Cor. 11: 4-16)? Could it be that I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 are addressing entirely different people and circumstances? We shall attempt by careful exegesis to ascertain exactly what Paul is and is not teaching when he penned I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches.." The original is, "Let the women in the churches be silent" (sigatosan ai gunaikes en tais ekklesiais). The King James translators infer "your" from the idea of the Corinthian women being addressed. However, it is evident that the women being addressed are not limited to Corinth. I say this based on the plural "churches" (ekklesiais, see also vs. 36). By "churches," the local church is meant. More precisely, "in a church" (en ekklesia, vs. 35) refers to the assembly as opposed to "at home" (en oiko).

Chapter fourteen of I Corinthians is a chapter in which we find regulation that especially pertained to the assembly. The use of spiritual gifts, especially tongues and prophesy, had a special utility and function, therefore, Paul is stressing how these miraculous gifts were to be exercised. As a consequence, we read such language as, "in church" (en ekklesia, vs. 19; 28). Paul speaks of "the whole church be come together in one place" (he hole ekklesia sunelthe epi to, vs. 23).

Such spiritual gifts as prophesy were designed for the edification of the church and were used in the assembly to edify the saints (vs. 3, 5, 22). Hence, we read of, "But if all prophesy, and there come in." (vs. 24). To "come in" (eiselthe) means to enter the assembly where prophesy was being done. Paul delineates the protocol and order for the exercise of spiritual gifts in the assembly (vs. 26-32). It, therefore, was in the assembly that these women were told to "be silent." "Silent" is from the Greek sigao and means, "To be silent" and "to keep silence, hold one's peace" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words and Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, respectively). Sigao is used nine times in the Greek New Testament and always with the idea of silence as opposed to sound (see Lk. 9: 36, "kept it close," KJV, is from sigao). In fact, sigao is used twice in the context of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. Paul wrote, "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church." and, "If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace" (vs. 28, 30). "Keep silence" (vs. 28) and "hold his peace" (vs. 30) is translated from sigao.

"…for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." Paul with this explanatory injection states the reason why these women were to keep silent in the church. The applicable teaching to which Paul alludes probably looks to Genesis 3: 16 as its inception. There was something that these women were doing that was in violation of this general law of submission.

"And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home.." All were to learn and be edified, but there was a circumstance in which Paul tells these particular women that they should ask their husbands at home. The original is literally, ".let them question at home their own husbands" (eperotatosan en oiko tous idious andras). Hence, these were women at Corinth who had "their own men" and they had, therefore, the opportunity to question their own men at home (they lived together as husband and wife).

".for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Paul ends this with another statement of explanation as suggested by the introductory word, "for" (Greek, gar). The question remains, who were these women and what were they doing that constituted a violation of submission and resulted in shame? The answer, ".they were speaking" is simplistic.

It is obvious that I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 demands qualification and stipulation. In the first place, to take this passage and simply say women are not allowed to speak in the assembly negates the general command to, "speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." (Eph. 5: 19). Hence, qualification is necessarily inferred. As mentioned, to insist that women, all women and in all circumstances, be without sound in the assembly is to make Paul contradict himself (his teaching relative to the prophetess, I Corinthians 11: 4-16). Consider the statement found in the Pulpit Commentary regarding the prophetess being the obvious "exception:"

".At the same time, it is fair to interpret it as a rule made with special reference to time and circumstances, and obviously admitting of exception in both dispensations.." Reference is then made to different prophetesses, "Judg. 4: 4; 2 Kings 22: 14; Nehe. 6: 14; Luke 2: 36." (The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 19, pg. 460, exposition of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35).

We have engaged in an exegesis of the passage and now let us look to the context for additional meaning.

I Corinthians chapter 14 is replete with instructions as to how to conduct themselves to avoid and obviate confusion (vs. 5, 6, 9, 16, 19, 23, 26-31). Paul plainly and cogently informed them that they were to be in control of themselves, even those who possessed spiritual gifts (vs. 32). I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is sandwiched between verses that forbid confusion and disorder (vs. 33, 40). I, therefore, submit that what these women were doing was asking questions (the specific speaking) in the assembly of their husbands in such a way that both precipitated confusion and also resulted in lack of subjection to their husbands. These "women" were not all the women at Corinth, but they were married women. It is also implied that their husbands of whom they were to inquire at home and not in the assembly were in a position to provide the answers to their questions. Moreover, it is highly likely that their husbands were the prophets concerning whom the immediately preceding verses pertain. Hence, these women were to remain silent or without sound (as opposed to speech) IN THE MATTER contextually being discussed, confusion and lack of submission to their husbands. As to other regulating teaching that is broader in its scope, we must look to such texts as I Timothy 2: 12-15.

While I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is characterized by specificity, women today can also create confusion in the assembly and be guilty of not being in subjection to their husbands by speaking out in such a way to similarly cause confusion. This is the paramount lesson found in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. However, to simplistically arbitrarily left verses 34, 35 out of their context and contend that there is contained in these verses a blanket requirement of the silence of women in the assembly is to defeat and ignore Paul's original application of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 and make the passage collide with a number of other matters.

Gary Reed with the first of two posts.

Thanks to both Don and William for initiating and participating in a focused discussion of this topic. My first post will deal with the concept of the assembly as it is in view in 1 Cor. 14, and my second post will get to the specifics of the implications of vss. 34-35.

PART 1 - The Assembly

That 1 Corinthians 14 distinguishes between what is proper "in the church" from what might be proper elsewhere should be clear to all. Though Paul thanked God that he spoke with tongues, he said, "howbeit, in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding...than ten thousand words in a tongue" (1 Cor. 14:19). Without an interpreter present, the one with the gift of tongues was to "keep silence in the church" (1 Cor. 14:27). Similarly, Paul's instruction that the women should keep silence was applicable "in the churches." Paul explained that "in the church," it was a shame for a woman to speak. Certainly Paul was not prohibiting the women from ever speaking. If there were any doubt, it is removed when Paul said, "let them ask their own husbands at home." Now if there is an instruction that pertains to one who is "in the church," we must assume that being in the church is not an indefinite status. We can know what it means to be "in the church."

The word church is a translation of the Greek EKKLHSIA ("H" for the Greek letter eta). This same word is translated "assembly" in Acts 19:32, 39 and 40. Some have said that EKKLHSIA means called out. However, while it may have been derived from two words, one meaning call and the other meaning out, even this is not certain. A footnote in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament cites an article by A. Jehle who "correctly emphasises the doubtfulness, if not the total irrelevance, of the etymology of EKKLHSIA." (TDNT, vol. 3, p. 530, n.91.) For his own part, K. L. Schmidt, who cited Jehle's article, wrote,

Whether Paul and other Greek speaking Christians were thinking of those "called forth" when they used the word EKKLHSIA, we cannot tell. It is not impossible, but not probable. (TDNT, vol. 3, p. 530.)

That God's people are called out of darkness is incontrovertible. But in the first century, there was no thought of "called out" in the word EKKLHSIA, whatever its derivation may have been. If EKKLHSIA was in fact derived from the expression "called out," we can see all the more why the Holy Spirt saw fit to use this word. However, we must always keep in mind the meaning which the word had in the first century.

Why should the word "assembly" have been used? First, because the one church, the one body of Christ, is a people spiritually assembled in the mind of God, indeed, having been called out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Pt. 2:9). Hebrews 12:23 speaks of "the general assembly and church (EKKLHSIA) of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven." In this sense, EKKLHSIA is used in Matthew 16:18 and Ephesians 1:22.

But the word is also used of Christians who literally, physically assemble. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul not only has reference to such Christians, but to their being assembled. He says, "if therefore the whole church be come together into one place..." (1 Cor. 14:23).

Some speak as if it is unrealistic to be able to know what is an assembly and what is not. Particularly as we begin to consider 1 Corinthians 14:34f, some suppose that we really cannot ever prohibit speaking on the part of women for we cannot ever know with certainty that the whole church is come together in one place. Such reasoning is to mock Paul and the Holy Spirit, for 1 Corinthians 14 presupposes that we can know.

The church was an identifiable group, not just a random gathering of saints. Paul could address the "church of God at Corinth" and it's particular problems. Similarly, those occasions when the church (assembly) is assembled are scripturally identifiable. They are not unidentifiable, nor are they to be arbitrarily identified.

The Whole Church, Assembled for Various Purposes (Acts 6, Acts 14, Acts 15, Acts 20, 1 Cor 5)

Churches in the New Testament assembled for various purposes. First of all, consider Acts 6, where the "multitude of the disciples" were called together in order to choose out seven men. Consider also Acts 14:27 where they "gathered the church ( EKKLHSIA ) together" so that Paul and Barnabas could report on the things God had done with them. Consider Acts 15:22 where "it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole church ( EKKLHSIA )" to send men to Antioch with a letter. Consider 1 Corinthians 5:4, where Paul admonishes the Corinthians to note the fornicator, delivering him to Satan, "ye being gathered together." And of course, the disciples at Troas "were gathered together to break bread" (Acts 20:7).

In What Assembly are the Women to Keep Silent?

As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:33b-35)

Some suppose this instruction was a unique limitation made necessary by circumstances peculiar to Corinth. But it begins, "As in all the churches..." Furthermore, the words, "for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church" are stated as a fundamental fact, not as a circumstantial judgment. And finally, Paul says, "let them be in subjection, as also saith the law." These are hardly words indicating a unique limitation made necessary by circumstances peculiar to Corinth.

The appeal to the law is not a reference to some Old Testament passage that required women to refrain from speaking. When Paul said, "as also saith the law," he was not talking about application, but principle. The law was subjection. The principle of subjection holds even though varying settings may call for a varying applications. For example, the wife is to be in subjection at home just as certainly as she is to be in subjection in the assembly. And yet the application of the principle is different. What she is told to do at home, she is forbidden to do in the assembly. "Let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." If the principle of subjection had the same application everywhere and in every relationship, then if asking a question in the assembly was a breach of subjection, it would be also at home.

Now, if the application of the principle can vary from assembly to home, it can also vary from the Old Testament to the New Testament, and yet the principle be constant. No, I don't believe I can show that Israelite women were to be silent in the holy convocations of the Old Testament, or in whatever might be construed to correspond to the assembly in 1 Corinthians 14. However, it is the principle, not the application, wherein Paul finds common ground with the Old Law.

Having said that, Paul does not give us the latitude to apply the principle however we see fit. Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, tells "all the churches" what application to make: "Let the women keep silence."

Notice that the passage does not say, "In the worship service..." It says, "in all the churches" i.e., in the assemblies. It is not "worship" that defines the occasion when the limitation applies, but assemblage. Paul stresses the idea of the assembled assembly by his redundant way of speaking in 1 Corinthians 11:20 ("assemble...together" - how else would a group assemble?) and in 1 Corinthians 14:23, where the KJV properly reads, "the whole church be come together into one place." That's not talking about an hour during which some of the saints are in the auditorium, some are in this room, some in that, and each group unaware of the activities of the others. Hence, a woman speaking in one of several Bible classes, while others of the congregation are in various of the other Bible classes, is not speaking in the "assembly". But there is no distinction whereby we might suppose that women are to be silent on one occasion when the church is assembled, and be permitted to speak on another such occasion.

The Activities of an Assembly: "5 Acts" are Neither a Maximum nor a Minimum.

To assert that we only have an assembly of the church when all "5 acts of worship" (itself, a phrase and a concept which is contrary to scripture), is to assert what one cannot find in scripture. Is the Lord's Supper mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14? No. And yet what is discussed there is an assembly wherein the women must be silent.

To assert that we only have an assembly when we only worship is to misunderstand the meaning of worship. From the standpoint of New Testament authority, to speak of worship meaningfully, one must associate this English word with one or more of the Greek words translated worship. The verb most frequently translated worship is PROSKUNEW ("W" used for the Greek letter omega). But this verb is too narrow to include much of the preaching that is included in assemblies. On the other hand, perhaps we would have in mind the verb LATREUW, which is translated "worship" four times in the King James Version of the New Testament. However, this word, also translated serve, is can encompass more than the so-called "five acts of worship." Paul was "serving God night and day." The fact is, it is not possible to come up with a scriptural definition of worship that will include preaching, and collecting funds, but exclude choosing deacons, or dealing with the unfaithful. The presence of "five acts of worship" is an arbitrary and unscriptural criterion for recognizing something as an assembly, and it is an arbitrary and unscriptural criterion for determining when women are to be
silent.

My preference is to use the English word worship to represent the Greek PROSKUNEW, and then to use it only with respect to those actions properly denoted by that verb. Thus, we worship in singing hymns of praise, but not in listening to a sermon. We may worship God as we praise him in prayer at the beginning of a Bible class, but not in everything that is said during the ensuing discussion. If this be how we use the word worship, then the gathering for the purpose of "breaking bread" (Acts 20:7) or the gathering of the church for some other purpose (whether to choose deacons, deliver one unto Satan, hear a report) is not characterized exclusively by worship, nor ought any of these be void of worship. Therefore, on what scriptural basis could we allow women to speak in one setting, but not the other? If someone wishes to speak of worship more broadly, only let him not be arbitrary in his use of the word, and he will still find it is applicable to the activities of any of these assemblies. Again, It is not "worship" that defines the occasion when the limitation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 applies, but
assemblage.

It is the church's business to do those things which the Lord has authorized it to do. If it is doing those things at a time when it is assembled, or in Paul's words, when "the whole church be come together into one place" (1 Cor. 14:23, KJV), why is that not an assembly? Or to be more clear, why is that not the "assembly" assembled? When there is a matter that scripturally is the concern of the whole congregation (whether to address the need for deacons, to deliver a fornicator unto Satan, to hear a report, etc.) and the whole congregation is assembled, let the women heed the instruction of 1 Corinthians 14:34ff. To put it another way, whenever the church is purposely assembled for a purpose which God has given it collectively, let the women heed the instruction of 1 Corinthians 14:34ff.

(...to be continued in a 2nd post)

Gary Reed with the 2nd of my 2 posts...

PART 2 - Does Silent Mean Silent? (1 Corinthians 14:34).

But several questions arise. What does "keep silence" mean? Which women are to be silent? Is the teaching that women are to be silent applicable today?

SIGAW means "keep silence"

What we are going to find is that "keep silence" well conveys the meaning of the Greek word, SIGAW, which it represents. That is why the translators have so translated the passage! Now the English word silent does not mean, "speak in a non-authoritative manner" or any such thing. And yet some have supposed that is what "let the women keep silence" means. We will see that neither the word itself nor the context of 1 Corinthians 14 calls for such a meaning.

Let us consider each of the ten passages where SIGAW occurs in the New Testament. The last of these is 1 Corinthians 14:34. We will see that in every case, the word means not to speak, and that it usually means to be silent with reference to something, e.g., some particular occasion, audience, topic, or time frame. Then we will note that the occasion under discussion in 1 Corinthians 14 is the assembly, and the audience is the assembly. With reference to speaking out in the assembly, whether in the form of a question or otherwise, women are to be silent. In short, Paul is saying women should not take the floor in the assembly. They should not speak out. Not a word. Paul's occasion for stating the prohibition is to apply it to the use of spiritual gifts, but that is only one application of what Paul affirms is a general prohibition against women speaking in the assembly.

LUKE 9: 36

We recall Peter's inclination to speak, even "not knowing what he said," when Jesus was transfigured and Moses and Elijah appeared with Him. In Luke's account of the transfiguration, we read,

And when the voice came Jesus was found alone. And they held their peace, and told no man in those days any of the things which they had seen.

The phrase, "held their peace" represents the single word, ESIGHSAN, which is simply the 3rd person plural aorist active indicative, of SIGAW. Does this mean that Peter, James, and John continued to speak in a non-authoritative manner?

LUKE 18:39

Luke tells of a certain blind man who called after Jesus, saying, "Jesus thou son of David have mercy on me." The crowd rebuked him, telling him "that he should hold his peace [SIGHSHi ("i" used to represent Greek iota subscript), 3rd per sing aor act subj. of SIGAW]." Did they mean that he should not say a word to anyone? That is doubtful. But they certainly did not mean that he should call after Jesus in a non-authoritative manner. They meant, with reference to calling out to Jesus, he should not speak; he should be silent.

It is worth noting that, contrary to the crowd's rebuke, the blind man continued to cry out. His words were reverent, pleading, and not at all authoritative. Nonetheless, he was not holding his peace. He was not being silent.

LUKE 20:26

When Jesus answered the question about giving tribute to Caesar, Luke says, "they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace." Now I don't suppose it is necessary to understand that those who had asked the question ceased to talk at all. However, with reference to arguing the point with Jesus, they quit talking; they were silent; they didn't say anymore, not a word.

ACTS 12:17

When Rhoda, the maid, excitedly announced that Peter was at the gate, the brethren who had gathered to pray were incredulous, some supposing that, "It is his angel." When they saw Peter with their own eyes, they "were amazed." Luke says, Peter, "beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him forth out of the prison." The picture is clear - he held his hand up, perhaps palm down, raising and lowering the forearm, motioning for his excited brethren to be quiet so that he could speak. When Luke says that Peter signaled them to "hold their peace" he certainly does not mean that Peter wished they would speak in a non-authoritative manner. He means that Peter wanted them to quit talking and listen, so that he could speak to them.

ACTS 15:12-13

In the context of the meeting in Jerusalem to discuss the teaching that Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, Luke writes, "And all the multitude kept silence and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul..." This is getting redundant, but once again, did that mean the multitude spoke in a non-authoritative manner? No, it meant they got quiet and listened, so that Paul and Barnabas could speak. While Paul and Barnabas spoke, a woman in the audience might have told her child to sit still, but the people in the audience allowed Paul and Barnabas "to have the floor." Women, and for that matter, men, were not speaking out with comments or questions. They held their peace. They were silent.

Then Luke writes, "And after [Paul and Barnabas] held their peace, James answered..." Now it was James' turn to speak. Paul and Barnabas quit speaking. Paul and Barnabas did not continue to recite, in a non-authoritarian manner, what God had wrought among the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas "gave up the floor." Paul might have whispered a comment to Barnabas as James spoke, but with reference to speaking out before the audience, Paul and Barnabas were silent.

ROMANS 16:25

Paul's reference to "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal" does not indicate that if the revelation of the mystery had been previously made, it would have had to be made in a non-authoritative manner. God did indeed speak in Old Testament times, but with reference to revealing the mystery, He did not speak; He was silent.

1 CORINTHIANS 14:28

The man who has the ability to speak in a tongue is to "keep silence in the church" if there is not one present who can interpret. This does not mean the tongue speaker can continue to speak in his tongue as long as he does so in a non-authoritative manner! Of course, it also doesn't mean that he can't lead a prayer if he does so in the common language. It means that, with reference to speaking in some other tongue, he is to refrain from speaking; he is to be silent. He is not to say a word.

1 CORINTHIANS 14:30

One man is speaking what has been revealed to him. "But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence." That does not mean the first can continue to speak, ask questions, etc., as long as he does so in a non-authoritative manner. It means he is to shut his mouth. Now in all of this, notice that siga/w means "be silent". It does not mean talk in a meek voice. Contrary to some who argue that the word does not mean be silent, let me say that it means precisely that. Now this silence is usually silence with reference to something, e.g., some particular occasion, topic, or time frame. But with reference to that occasion, topic, or time frame, it means not to speak.

1 CORINTHIANS 14:34

In this passage as well, when the women are told to keep silence, that means they are not to speak. Indeed Paul, says, "for it is not permitted unto them to speak."

Does it merely mean she cannot speak in an authoritative manner? That the word itself doesn't mean that is clear from all the passages where it is used, which we have discussed. Now let's turn our attention to the context, and see if there is anything in the context which suggests Paul means, be silent with reference to speaking in an authoritarian manner.

The meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34f

If the context of the whole chapter is considered, we recall that Paul was not saying the tongue speaker could speak in a non-authoritative manner in the absence of an interpreter, nor was Paul saying the first prophet could continue speaking if he did so in a non-authoritative manner when one sitting by received a revelation.

In the immediate context, notice that the women were not even to ask questions: "If they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home." Nothing in the context suggests that Paul's command to be silent only had reference to speaking in an authoritative manner. Do notice that in the context, Paul does have reference to speaking out in the assembly, to "taking the floor," to speaking out so to have the attention of the assembled brethren. That's what he was talking about in verses 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 16, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, and really, throughout the whole chapter. The instruction regarding the women is in this vein. Therefore, this passage does not prohibit the woman from whispering to her child that he needs to sit still. Nor does this passage prohibit the woman from adding her voice to the chorus of voices that offer praise to God and edification to one another. But with reference to speaking out in the assembly, she is to be silent, absolutely silent. She is not even to ask a question.

I believe it can be maintained that the admonition, "let them keep silence" particularly has in view prophesying and speaking in tongues. After discussing the proper use of the gifts, it naturally follows that if women were not permitted to speak generally in the assembly, a special admonition should be given them lest they suppose their gifts exempted them from this prohibition. Concerning prophesying or speaking in tongues in the assembly, the women are to "say nothing, keep silent" (Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich, 2^nd ed.).

Nonetheless, Paul gives the reason: "for it is not permitted unto them to speak." Paul's prohibition that the women not use the gift of prophecy or tongue speaking in the assembly is based on the general principle that the women are not permitted to speak in the assembly. Therefore, this prohibition against speaking cannot be limited to the exercise of spiritual gifts. The general principle even precluded asking a question. Paul writes, "And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." Some stumble over this sentence, noting that not all women have husbands, and miss the point. Paul is talking about asking questions, and forbids women to do this in the assembly! How can it be construed that Paul is only speaking of the exercise of spiritual gifts when he speaks of seeking information?

What about the problem that not all women have husbands? It is as in 1 Corinthians 11:34, where Paul wrote, "If any man is hungry, let him eat at home." This was not to say that home is the only place a man could satisfy his hunger. But it was to say that a man should not construe the Lord's Supper as a meal to satisfy hunger, that there are other occasions where it is appropriate to satisfy hunger, and Paul mentioned the most obvious: "at home". So also in 1 Corinthians 14:35. Paul does not mean to say that a woman may not privately ask one of the elders, or an older woman, or whomever. But he makes it clear that she should not ask her question in the assembly, that there are others besides the assembled church to whom she can address her question, and Paul mentions the most obvious: her husband.

William Henderson here to brethren Don Martin and Gary Reed (and the list):

First of all, I would like to thank God and these two good brethren (and the listers) for this oppty to have such a discussion/study. Also, I want to thank brethren Martin and Reed for the work they put into their first posts on this study. This will be an abbreviated post .

"I Corinthians 14: 34, 35", AN EXPLANATION:

The passage reads as follows: "34: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35: And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church"

Does I Cor. 14:34,35 apply to women today? I believe so. Why do I believe so? In part, due to my understanding of the "b" part of verse 35 which reads, "for it is a shame for women to speak in the church". Thus, one might take a number of views on "just who" the "women" might be in earlier references to the female gender in verses 34 and 35a, but when we get to 35b, I contend that the text instructs us that all women (then and now) are included without question. (NOTE: I am not necessarily, however, excluding all women, then and now, from the instruction found in other areas of verses 34, 35 referencing the female gender).

VERSE 34

Paul writes: "Let your women." this is the Corinthian women in particular at the church of God at Corinth (1:2), but the instruction would extend to all women then and now (See vs 33b; Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:2; I Cor. 4:17).

"keep silence in the churches:." means not to speak a word in the assembly (i.e. the church together in one place). Just like the tongue speaker who was in a situation without an interpreter was not to speak a word (see vs. 28), the woman is not to speak a word in the church. NOTE: this instruction is not applicable to the simultaneous Bible class arrangement, but when the "whole church be come together into one place" (vs. 19, 23, 26, 28, 33, 34, 35). The teaching herein is that the woman is not to speak in such a way as to address the assembly, whether authoritatively or not. Thus, I EXCLUDE a mother, for example who whispers to her misbehaving child to "be quiet", from this instruction. But, if the woman "in the church" speaks in such a way, like to ask a question, or to give an announcement update for one who is sick, comment on a passage of scripture, OR another such address (when the whole church be come together into one place, as the church), she violates the instruction of the text.


"but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." means that all women are commanded in the new testament dispensation to be under obedience as women have been instructed in previous times. This is NOT to say that we can find a verse in the law of Moses that parallels this, but rather passages like Gen 3:15,16 and I Tim. 2:12-14 show the matter of headship and God's law of subjection with regards to the male and female genders since the beginning. This is NOT a dig against women, as some who promote women preachers today would accuse Paul of advocating, but rather God's designated roles for men and women. This would also apply to "prophetesses", which we will have more to say about in the discussion portion of our study. While women are not allowed to usurp dominion over man anywhere at anytime; women are particularly forbidden from speaking "in church" in this text (NOT merely forbidden from speaking ONLY in such a way as to exercise dominion over men, as some might contend, for they are not even allowed to ask a question.which is NOT necessarily authoritative in nature).

VERSE 35

Paul continues: "And if they will learn any thing" gives us one particular wherein the women would not be able to speak a word in the church to understand a point of teaching in the assembly, for example, and would need to seek further clarification or instruction elsewhere.

"let them ask their husbands at home:" gives ONE solution, of several, that would be authorized (away or outside the assembly of the church) in that women could, for example, ask their husbands (if they had one) at home (one place that is not "the assembly" of several wherein they could speak). NOTE: such would NOT, however, preclude a married woman from asking a single man a question, so long as such was outside the assemblage of the local church. There are many situations, all of which would be proper for virgins, widows, ladies married to non-prophets, etc. to speak, but ALL such instances/situations would be outside the situation "when the whole church be come together into one place".

"for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" gives the inspired reason, God's reason in the new covenant instruction that women are not to speak in the assembly: for it is A SHAME for them to do so! Such was not based upon custom/cultural/societal norms; such is God's revealed truth on the matter. Such was not limited to Corinthian women; such is the instruction for women in the gospel age.

SOME THOTS FOLLOW..

SINGING IS "SPEAKING".WOMEN CAN SING IN THE ASSEMBLY May a woman sing (and therefore be involved in a sense of "speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" without violating this passage? Certainly, for we find authority for that action in the inspired record (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16,17)! Just as Luke 16:18 must be understood in light of Matthew 19:9 and 5:32, so I Cor. 14:34,35 must be harmonized with other passages, as well.

TO WHOM WRITTEN?

I believe that all Corinthian women were the direct ones to whom Paul is referring in these verses, to include instruction to be obeyed by all women in other churches of the first century and now (See I Cor. 14:33b; I Cor. 4:17; 2 Tim. 2:2; Mt. 28:18-20). What Paul taught them, he would teach everywhere in every church and Paul taught Timothy that faithful men and women were to teach others also...just like what Jesus taught in the Great Commission...teaching them to observe ALL THINGS that I have commanded you..."

THE REASON "WHY" WOMEN ARE NOT TO SPEAK IS GIVEN.

I believe that most who misunderstand this passage do not properly understand verse 35b...".for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." No matter "who" the "your women" are...the reason that ALL WOMEN are not allowed to speak in church (virgins, non-virgins, spouses of prophets, spouses of non-prophets, widows) is the fact that God says that such is a SHAME.

I CORINTHIANS 11 and I CORINTHIANS 14

Brother Don wrote in his first post, "Some present I Corinthians 14:34, 35 in a way that manifestly contradicts what Paul taught in I Corinthians 11: 4-16 regarding the prophetesses and how they were to "pray or prophesy." One view is that after telling the prophetesses how to do what they were doing in public places in chapter eleven, Paul now decides to change his teaching and tell the prophetesses to be silent in the assembly. Some have introduced these two texts as an example of ambivalence and indecision. Others, based on I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 have concluded that public places such as the assembly were not included in the text of I Corinthians 11: 3-16. If this be the case, how could there have been the doing of the same thing and in the same circumstance that occasioned the need for the head covering enjoined by Paul in the case of the prophetesses (I Cor. 11: 4-16)? Could it be that I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 are addressing entirely different people and circumstances? We shall attempt by careful exegesis to ascertain exactly what Paul is and is not teaching when he penned I Corinthians 14: 34, 35."

William here:

The writing above by brother Don will serve as a particularly good starting point as we discuss our different views of this passage. I will withhold review of Don's first post now, for such is not the purpose of this first post of mine. I do believe that we should keep the above paragraph written by our good brother Don in mind and deal with it sentence-by-sentence as we continue our study of this good topic.

Don Martin to William Henderson, Gary Reed, and the list (post one of two):

All three of us have now completed what William calls "round one" by submitting an exegesis on I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. William has suggested that after we have accomplished round one we then:

ROUND TWO
Then Don, Gary and I should have (at least) one more round of posts reviewing each other's positions on that material (1a and 1b) before moving to asking questions of each other?

Don kicks off round two:

There are many points of apparent similarity between the exegetical posts published by the three of us, especially between William and Gary's material. Let me remind us that this exchange on I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 was prompted by differences between William and me relative to the William's different view on the covering matter of I Corinthians 11: 4-16. I have contended that the "praying or prophesying" women of that text were prophetesses who were doing the same thing and in the same circumstance as their male counter-parts; hence, the headship issue that, in their case (in view of how they viewed the covering), required the artificial covering on the heads of the prophetesses. William has taken strong issue with this and contended that God never allowed prophetesses to prophesy in public before a mixed audience as he allowed his male prophets. To attempt to prove this, William alluded to I Corinthians 14: 34, 35, believing that Paul's command, "Let your women keep silence in the churches..." precluded prophetesses from publicly exercising their gift of prophesy. Gary Reed then said that he "wanted in on this exchange" (I believe Gary essentially hold's the same position as William in this matter).

It is evident from our three explanatory posts that the three of us have many points of agreement regarding I Corinthians 14: 34, 35, at least on the surface. We each seem to appreciate the "assembly" circumstance of the teaching and that the teaching applied not only to Corinth, but also to all the churches. We have apparent agreement in that we each apply the teaching to today as well. All three of us seem to concur relative to the meaning of such important key words as sigao, translated "keep silence" in our review passage. Wherein lies the chief difference?  There is a
marked difference between William and Gary's understanding of what precipitated the prohibition to "keep silence" and my understanding. As a consequence, William and Gary (they seem to be in agreement) and I differently apply "keep silence."

I wrote:

I Corinthians chapter 14 is replete with instructions as to how to conduct themselves to avoid and obviate confusion (vs. 5, 6, 9, 16, 19, 23, 26-31). Paul plainly and cogently informed them that they were to be in control of themselves, even those who possessed spiritual gifts (vs. 32). I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is sandwiched between verses that forbid confusion and disorder (vs. 33, 40). I, therefore, submit that what these women were doing was asking questions (the specific speaking) in the assembly of their husbands in such a way that both precipitated confusion and also resulted in lack of subjection to their husbands. These "women" were not all the women at Corinth, but they were married women. It is also implied that their husbands of whom they were to inquire at home and not in the assembly were in a position to provide the answers to their questions. Moreover, it is highly likely that their husbands were the prophets concerning whom the immediately preceding verses pertain. Hence, these women were to remain silent or without sound (as opposed to speech) IN THE MATTER contextually being discussed, confusion and lack of submission to their husbands. As to other regulating teaching that is broader in its scope, we must look to such texts as I Timothy 2: 12-15.

Don reflects:

It seems that they and I have a different understanding of the action being presented in the context of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. As I have said, I view the circumstance of I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 to involve totally different subjects and activities that are unrelated. Therefore, I do not believe there is any correlation between the two texts. "Keep silence" is addressing the circumstances of the text: asking questions of their husbands in the assembly, probably the prophets just discussed, in such a way as to promote confusion and disorder (vs. 33, 40). Hence, rather than do this, they were to remain without sound (sigao), this absence of speech, however, was only in this regard, they were to sing, for instance (Eph. 5: 19).

Please consider post two.

Don Martin to William Henderson, Gary Reed, and the list (post two of two):

As I have heretofore made plain, I do not accept the restricted, non-public role some assign to the prophetess of the Bible. I wrote in my exchange with William:

"There are a number of prophetesses (women who prophesied) mentioned in the Bible (cp. Miriam; Deborah; Huldah; and Anna, Ex. 15: 20, 21; Jud. 4: 4-10; 2 Kgs. 22: 14-20; Lk. 2: 36-38).

Let me be simple and brief and just take the case of Anna.

"36: And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; 37: And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38: 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" (Lk. 2).

Please observe three things:

(1). Anna was a "prophetess" (vs. 36).
(2). She departed not from the temple (vs. 37, probably also resided there).
(3). Anna "spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (vs. 38).

At this point, I intended to insert a number of learned statements regarding Anna speaking "to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." However, I decided against it. The text is plain to all who approach it with an open mind. "Don, do you really believe Anna publicly prophesied and taught in the temple to both men and women?" I sure do. Why would I not? This is what we read in Luke 2: 36-38. There is no way one can limit "all" (pasin). Anna taught and prophesied (she was a prophetess) to all, men and women alike. It is untenable to think of "all" as women only or women and children only. Anna spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." Anna was a prophetess and she prophesied in the temple, publicly and to mixed audiences. This was her job as a prophetess.

Again, please consider my syllogism:

(1). Those who had the gift of prophecy (both men and women), were to edify the church with their gift (I Cor. 14: 3, 5, 12, 23, 24, 26-31).

(2). The church at Corinth was comprised of both male and female members (I Cor. 14: 34, 35; 11: 4, 5).

(3). Hence, both prophets and prophetesses were publicly used to teach the church and foretell by the impetus of the Holy Spirit.

Prophesy was used publicly to teach both men and women. Again, these prophetesses were the exception of I Timothy 2: 12."

Someone asks, "Where do I read that the prophets and the prophetesses were doing the same thing and in the same circumstance?" The answer is found in the reason the covering is enjoined on the prophetesses. The very reason for the covering was the circumstance that these prophets and prophetesses were "praying or prophesying" and there needed to be some visible sign of authority or headship recognition on these inspired women to let others know that they respected headship while they were doing the same thing and in the same circumstance. Prophetesses were not given the miraculous gift of prophesy to only teach women and children!

Before saying more, I shall wait for Gary and William to make their reply posts (round two). Suffice me to say that there is no contradiction between I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. They are really unrelated texts as they involve different subjects (people) and circumstances. I encourage you to respectfully consider William and Gary's comments.

Gary Reed here with my "round two" post:

Don, I'll address my remarks to you because as it turns out, I think William and I are pretty much on the same page after all, at least as far as 1 Cor. 14: 34-35 is concerned.

I think you have fairly accurately characterized our points of agreement and disagreement. After reading your remarks, I think you are interpreting the verses at issue based on the view that the theme running throughout chapter 14 is the elimination of confusion and disorder in the assembly. You are seeing that same theme as accounting for Paul's remarks in verses 34-35.

You see the women of verses 34-35 as wives who were questioning their husbands in the assembly in such a way as to create confusion. I see them as being women in general who are not to speak in the assembly, and the admonition for them to be silent occasioned in this particular context because some of them had the gift of prophecy, a subject that was under discussion.

The root cause of our difference may be twofold:

(1) You see verses 34-36 as being one more admonition in keeping with the overall theme, preventing confusion. I see the same verses as almost an aside to the main theme. I say "almost" because I don't want to trivialize the verses. Perhaps I would do better to say I see them as only tangentially connected.

(2) You see the theme as avoiding confusion; I see the theme as using the gifts in a way that results in understanding. That may seem like two sides of the same coin, but I think there is a real difference there that may in part account for our difference in understanding vss. 34-35. And if I'm right about the theme, then your interpretation of verses 34-35 makes them as much an aside as does mine.

You are right about the fact that Paul warns against confusion. But note that it is not a discussion about all sorts of things that might cause confusion. Rather it is about the proper use of spiritual gifts in a manner that results in understanding. Confusion is the alternative result if gifts are misused. This is significant because you are trying to interpret vss. 34-35 in a way that keeps the theme intact, and yet your interpretation supposes that Paul takes time to discuss a sort of confusion that might or might not be connected with spiritual gifts, and if connected, only tangentially connected.

That you see the theme as avoiding confusion and that you see vss 34-35 as intregral to that theme are evidenced in the following remarks, or so it seems to me:

I Corinthians chapter 14 is replete with instructions as to how to conduct themselves to avoid and obviate confusion (vs. 5, 6, 9, 16, 19, 23, 26-31).

and

I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is sandwiched between verses that forbid confusion and disorder (vs. 33, 40).

But in fact, I think you only keep the theme intact if you do indeed suppose the theme is various sources of confusion rather than specifically confusion that results from misuse of spiritual gifts. And to maintain even an indirect connection to the subject of spiritual gifts, you must do some speculating. You write:

"…it is highly likely that their husbands were the prophets concerning whom the immediately preceding verses pertain.

Even if we grant that the husbands were the prophets, the admonition in vss. 34-35 would not be called for as a result of some abuse of the gift on their part. Those verses would be called for because of misbehavior on the part of their wives. And thus again I say it seems to me your interpretation has the verses departing from the theme of rightly and rationally using the gifts. Given your interpretation of vss 34-35, they can only be viewed as wholly integral to the overall theme if indeed the overall theme is taken to be "confusion."

Concerning the most apt characterization of the theme, the reason confusion was undesirable is that the objective was understanding, and confusion worked against understanding. In other words, Paul is not just talking about all sorts of causes of confusion. He is talking about confusion that results when the gifts are used in a way that prevents understanding. This is, after all, still part of the section that began with the words, "now concerning spiritual gifts..." (12:1).

Let me call attention to the theme of understanding, or what we might describe as "the rational use" of the spiritual gifts in the assembly:

The problem with tongues in the assembly is "no man understandeth" (vs. 2)

The advantage of prophecy is "edification, and exhortation, andconsolation." (vs. 3)

Tongues were valuable in the assembly only if one might "interpret, that the church may receive edifying" (vs. 5)

Paul rhetorically asks, "What shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching." (vs. 6)

Paul illustrates the importance of meaning in communication of any kind in vss. 7-8.

Note vs. 9: "So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to understood, how shall it be known what is spoken."

And I could go on.

Paul only brings the subject of confusion in as the undesirable result of misusing the gifts. But the theme is the importance of using the gifts in such a way that there is edification, or we could say, the rational use of the gifts.

To discuss women questioning their husbands is not intregral to that theme. You maintain only a tenuous connection to the subject of spiritual gifts by supposing the husbands of the women are the prophets in view, and then only as a matter of speculation, although you think it "highly likely."

Granted, I also have vss 34-35 only tangentially connected to the theme. I have Paul turning aside to remind the women that although some of them have the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 11, Acts 21:9) they were not to use it in the assembly. I see that as a natural aside inasmuch as he had just given some very specific details about how to use the gifts. In view of the degree to which Paul went into detail on the subject, to omit a reminder that women are not to speak in the assembly might have left the impression that silence was permission. After all, if Paul saw fit to explain the number of tongue speakers to be limited to two or three, and the procedure for a prophet to follow if another sitting by received a revelation as he was speaking, some might have supposed surely he would have mentioned that only men were to use the gifts in the assembly if that were the case. And so he did.

If you will agree with me that the theme is rational use of the spiritual gifts and therefore agree that we both view vss. 34-35 as only tangentially connected, I think you will still see an advantage to your interpretation for two reasons:

(1) You see my interpretation as putting chapter 14 in conflict with 11:1-16

(2) You see my interpretation as being contradicted by the fact that women did prophesy in public.

To the first, I would simply say there is no contradiction if we understand that 1 Cor. 11:1-16 is not limited to the assembly. (And I gather a difference of understanding on that very point is what gave rise to the present discussion?)

To the second, I would simply note that the issue is not women prophesying in public. I will readily grant that women may have prophesied in public. I have no problem with your comments about Anna. But the issue is women prophesying in the assembly, not women prophesying in public. Regardless of how publicly they may have prophesied, they were not to use that gift in the assembly for they were not to speak at all in the assembly. To underscore the difference in the two settings and the consistency of my interpretation relative to that point, I see no prohibition against a woman speaking in public, but there was a prohibition against her speaking in the assembly.

William Henderson here to brethren Don Martin and Gary Reed (and the list): (Round two)

Don wrote:
Some present I Corinthians 14:34, 35 in a way that manifestly contradicts what Paul taught in I Corinthians 11: 4-16 regarding the prophetesses and how they were to "pray or prophesy."

William here:
Since Don believes that women prophetesses taught over men in the assembly of the local church (per his understanding of I Cor. 11 and the role of prophetesses in the New Testament) and since I Cor 14 teaches some, or all women, are to be silent in the church, Don will have a contradiction in his present understanding and the manner in which he teaches on these two passages IF it is determined that such women includes "the prophetesses" in instruction (for example): ".for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Cor. 14:35b). At present, there is no contradiction in Don's position on both passages, as he explains them, for his position has a "special class of women called prophetesses ONLY" (along with their role to teach over men by exception of God's law of subjection) in his view on I Cor. 11 and a "special class of women called prophets' wives ONLY" in his view of I Cor. 14: 34, 35. IF either position he holds be shown to be wrong, down goes his theory that prophetesses preached in the assembly of churches of Christ over men! (Note: This is NOT the same as believing that prophetesses taught in some "public" settings or even edified the church). Please read on.

Don wrote:
One view is that after telling the prophetesses how to do what they were doing in public places in chapter eleven, Paul now decides to change his teaching and tell the prophetesses to be silent in the assembly.

William here:
Does Don LITERALLY EQUATE "public places" above to "in the assembly" in his question above? OR, is "public places" by definition a phrase including settings LARGER and OTHER THAN "in the assembly" of the local church? Such is important to know in such a Bible study as this. Equivocation is something we don't want to engage in, consciously or unconsciously! If such is Don's view of my position, for example, wherein do "private settings" get fair billing? (i.e. public and private settings???) I don't believe that the "immediately above view" written by Don is the view of any of the three in ~this~ discussion. We AGREE such is an incorrect understanding, I think. Let us note here, however, that one can find scholars, who put forth this view. This should be a warning that we can find someone to agree with us on just about any issue that we would like to. This is not enough to establish truth (i.e. finding some scholar, or non-scholar for that matter who decides to put something into print, who agrees with our position on a topic); but, by rightly dividing God's Word we properly discern truth. Don's position on I Corinthians 11, in my estimation, starts off with several assumptions and from those assumptions leaps to other conclusions that are not based on solid footing, but rather on his original (incorrect) assumptive reasons that were faulty in the first place. The reader is asked to return to the listing of over 15 assumptions I have listed previously that Don asks us to believe to join hands with him that are not demanded by the inspired record on that subject!

Don continued:
Could it be that I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 are addressing entirely different people and circumstances? We shall attempt by careful exegesis to ascertain exactly what Paul is and is not teaching when he penned I Corinthians 14: 34, 35."

William here:
Could it be that I Corinthians 11 and I Corinthians 14 are BOTH addressing the same women (directly), ALL WOMEN, at Corinth who worshipped and worked among each other on a regular basis at the same congregation? In one chapter, instruction was given concerning whenever and wherever (public OR private settings) wherein they would be allowed to, in keeping with their roles, "pray or prophesy" and in another chapter, wherein they would be in the church setting (i.e. in the assembly setting)??? YES, William answers. But brother Don believes differently. Don believes in a SPECIAL CLASS of WOMEN in I Corinthians 11: 1-16; "PROPHETESSES ONLY", when God's Word uses the terminology "every woman" (I Cor. 11:5)! Thus, Don has freely admitted the non-prophetesses and non-prophets can pray in the assembly (for an example) uncovered/covered with God's blessings! Don also believes and restricts the instruction of I Corinthians 14:34,35 in part to another SPECIAL CLASS of WOMEN (IF I understand his position properly, which will bear out in the course of this particular study): "THE PROPHETS' WIVES ONLY", when God's Word uses the terminology "for it is a shame for WOMEN to speak in the church" (I Cor. 14:35b). This, I contend, is ALSO based on false assumptions. THEN, Don concludes that the passages don't have a bearing on each other in the respect that two different classes of women are discussed! We believe Don gravely errs in this understanding and application of the passage. Please read on to see if such is the case or not. Be fully persuaded in your own minds. It should be noted that the issue of "women teachers" was the beginning point for my discussion on these two texts with brother Don. I do believe very strongly that women could prophesy IN SOME PUBLIC SETTINGS AND IN SOME PRIVATE SETTINGS and EVEN TEACH MEN in so doing (thereby negating the impression some may get from Don's writings, brother Don!!!). IT IS TRUE, however, that I do NOT believe that prophetesses were ever allowed by God to exercise dominion over men in their prophesying, whether in public OR private settings (I Tim. 2:11,12). I also do not believe that prophetesses were allowed to speak in the church (when the whole church be come together into one place per I Cor. 14: 34, 35). That is an accurate representation of what I believe. Let's continue to be very careful in our writings wherein we make broad statements that are not correct about the others' position, please. Thanks. Hope that helps a bit.

William Henderson here to Don Martin, Gary Reed and the listers: (post two of three)

We continue our good study examining previously posted material.

Don wrote:
I, therefore, submit that what these women were doing was asking questions (the specific speaking) in the assembly of their husbands in such a way that both precipitated confusion and also resulted in lack of subjection to their husbands. These "women" were not all the women at Corinth, but they were married women. It is also implied that their husbands of whom they were to inquire at home and not in the assembly were in a position to provide the answers to their questions. Moreover, it is highly likely that their husbands were the prophets concerning whom the immediately preceding verses pertain. Hence, these women were to remain silent or without sound (as opposed to speech) IN THE MATTER contextually being discussed, confusion and lack of submission to their husbands. As to other regulating teaching that is broader in its scope, we must look to such texts as I Timothy 2: 12-15.

William here:
Another supposition, or made-up scenario, by our good brother Don. Don didn't give us a passage that taught such was really taking place in the manner he guesses it was at Corinth, did he? What we do have in the inspired record is what God would determine to give us, knowing that we have all things that pertain to life and godliness in our canon. We don't have to guess, assume and raise conjecture arguments to support unwarranted positions, when we can derive our position direct from the text, without adding a mixture of assumption into the recipe!

Don reflects:
As I have said, I view the circumstance of I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 to involve totally different subjects and activities that are unrelated. Therefore, I do not believe there is any correlation between the two texts.

William here:
I sure hope the brethren at Corinth didn't think the way brother Don is advocating. Paul says "every woman" in chapter 11 and the women are supposed to understand "prophetesses only". Paul says "pray" in chapter 11 and the men and women are to understand "leading prayer only that is miraculous only". Paul says "every man" in chapter 11 and the brethren are to properly understand, according to brother Don's teaching, that such really means "every prophet only". The verse in 35b reads, ".for it is a shame for women to speak in church." and the brethren are to understand this is ONLY prophets' wives asking questions that can be clarified at home by their husbands who are prophets and will have the answer EXCLUSIVELY???

Don wrote:
"Keep silence" is addressing the circumstances of the text: asking questions of their husbands in the assembly, probably the prophets just discussed, in such a way as to promote confusion and disorder (vs. 33, 40). Hence, rather than do this, they were to remain without sound (sigao), this absence of speech, however, was only in this regard, they were to sing, for instance (Eph. 5: 19).

William here:
Don doesn't stop at what the text says. Notice how our good brother Don runs with a particular possibility that he believes was the case! Such is tragic, in trying to reach agreement on God's truth. Could a prophet's wife, in a manner NOT creating confusion and disorder, ask a question of a prophet IN THE CHURCH? Just how "necessary" is part/link in the instruction that Don is attempting to make (to "avoid confusion and disorder" being linked specifically to the silence of the prophets' wives/women in the text not speaking) to the LIMITATIONS of the prohibition??? Dear brother Don and readers, I am NOT trying to be harsh with my good brother and friend Don, but must point out mistakes I see in his incorrect belief. Thanks.

William Henderson to Don Martin, Gary Reed and the listers: (post three of three)

Concerning one thing brother Gary wrote concerning "the theme" of chapter 14: "(2) You see the theme as avoiding confusion; I see the theme as using the gifts in a way that results in understanding. That may seem like two sides of the same coin, but I think there is a real difference there that may in part account for our difference in understanding vss. 34-35. And if I'm right about the theme, then your interpretation of verses 34-35 makes them as much an aside as does mine."

William here:
With great appreciation for Gary's studied approach (like Don's) to various subject matter, including the present topic, I ask. Does properly understanding just what would be "the theme" of chapter 14 (whether "understanding" or "avoiding confusion") preclude one from properly being able to understand that ".it is a shame for women to speak in the church." in this particular case, to mean and include all women, and not just prophets' wives? I believe it MAY help brother Don, and such is great, IF he be wrong on this (to be fair). It's like unto the matter of what is the "theme" of I Corinthians 11??? Headship? Coverings? Subjection? Distinctions in Men and Women? Customs? If the "theme" is not given in the text specifically, OR is not able to be ascertained by unavoidable conclusion demanded from the texts, then such is not necessary unto proper interpretation/application of the passage.agree? Hope so. Just as I don't have to know the reason behind even a reason, like "because of the angels" in order to understand an instruction is given to be obeyed, we don't have to know the mind of Paul or God in order to know that "women are to keep silent in the church". Now, that does NOT mean that we aren't sometimes given God's reason or theme (stated, or really unavoidably concluded).

Don continues:
Someone asks, "Where do I read that the prophets and the prophetesses were doing the same thing and in the same circumstance?" The answer is found in the reason the covering is enjoined on the prophetesses. The very reason for the covering was the circumstance that these prophets and prophetesses were "praying or prophesying" and there needed to be some visible sign of authority or headship recognition on these inspired women to let others know that they respected headship while they were doing the same thing and in the same circumstance. Prophetesses were not given the miraculous gift of prophesy to only teach women and children!

William here:
Don uses, in my estimation, circular reasoning above and elsewhere in his position on I Cor. 11. We will formulate a careful paragraph or two on such and post later. Don has assumed that prophets and prophetesses were competing, or that such a problem "might occur", if I recall correctly. We are making slight progress.

Don Martin to William Henderson, Gary Reed, and the list (my question one):

Our exchange on I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is progressing well. Both William and Gary are evincing an admirable tone in the exchange. They are pressing their points, trying to show where I am wrong, as is to be expected, but they continue to focus on the issue and not personalities.

Again, our study verses read:

"34: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35: And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor. 14).

All three of us have posted an exegesis of the above passage and a post that addresses some of the perceived differences between us. William and Gary basically agree on some of the involved essential differences. I have contended that the "women" of the passage were specific women at Corinth who were doing a specific thing: they were asking questions that were both causing confusion in the assembly and were not submitting to headship regulation. I form this conclusion based on the context (vs. 33, 40). I do not, though, believe the teaching of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is limited to these married women at Corinth. Anytime a woman asks a disruptive question in the assembly and/or violates headship regulation, she is in disobedience to Paul's teaching. I have conceded that the general subject of chapter fourteen is the regulation of spiritual gifts and that in this vein, Paul is addressing in verses 34, 35 a matter that was creating disharmony and contumacy: these women asking questions.

I have also said that qualification must be understood relative to "keep silence in the churches"(sigatosan ai gunaikes en tais ekklesiais). The example that I have provided is the command to sing (Eph. 5: 19). Both William and Gary appear to agree. I have stressed that if we understand an all inclusive nature to the command, "Let your women keep silence in the churches," we have Paul either changing his mind from the time of chapter eleven or contradicting himself, I say this regarding the fact of the prophetess concerning whom Paul said she must have her head covered (I Cor. 11: 4-16). Both William and Gary have said that they do not believe prophetesses ever taught in the assembly (as the prophets taught). While I have not limited I Corinthians 11 to the assembly (same assembly situation as I Corinthians 14), I do believe chapter eleven included the assembly circumstance. Prophecy is seen in the assembly and was one of the main assembly exercised gifts (I Cor. 14). Moreover, the obvious headship problem pertaining to these prophets and prophetesses necessarily involved them doing the same thing (cp. I Cor. 11: 4, 5). The covering of chapter eleven signified that while these prophetesses were doing precisely the same as the prophets and evidently in the same situations, they realized that they were under headship subjugation (I Cor. 11: 4-16).

It is my understanding that at this stage in our exchange, I am supposed to submit my question one of William and Gary. My question one will focus on who these women were mentioned in our study verses. It is indisputable that they were married and had husbands who were knowledgeable.

Relative to these women, William has said:

"Could it be that I Corinthians 11 and I Corinthians 14 are BOTH addressing the same women (directly), ALL WOMEN, at Corinth who worshipped and worked among each other on a regular basis at the same congregation?"

Don comments:

It was evident in our exchange on I Corinthians 11 that William viewed "every woman praying or prophesying" as every woman at Corinth and every where (see I Cor. 11: 4, 5).

Gary has said:

"I have Paul turning aside to remind the women that although some of them have the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 11, Acts 21:9) they were not to use it in the assembly.

My question one asked of both Gary (first) and William:

In view of the language, "Let your women keep silence in the churches" is Paul including the prophetess and precluding her from any public prophesying in the assembly (prophesying as did the prophets)?

I think William and Gary each have really answered this question, but I want to fine tune a couple of matters anterior to making any comments.

Of interest, I believe, Gary seems to agree that Bible prophetesses did teach and address mixed audiences that included males (Gary said he agreed with my comments pertaining to Anna, Lk. 2: 36-38).

Gary wrote:

To the second, I would simply note that the issue is not women prophesying in public. I will readily grant that women may have prophesied in public. I have no problem with your comments about Anna. But the issue is women prophesying in the assembly, not women prophesying in public. Regardless of how publicly they may have prophesied, they were not to use that gift in the assembly for they were not to speak at all in the assembly.

I thank both William and Gary in advance for their answer and I commend you for your interest. In view of the changing role of women often seen in religion, I believe such exchanges and studies are very timely.

Don Martin to Gary Reed, William Henderson, and the list (answers to my question one):

My question one that I submitted to Gary and William read:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches" is Paul including the prophetess and precluding her from any public prophesying in the assembly (prophesying as did the prophets)?

Gary answered:

Yes.

William replied thus:

William here:
There are two parts to brother Don's question above: Part one asks if "prophetesses" were included in the meaning/sense of the word "women" as used in verse 34. Part two asks if the prohibition of verses 34,35 instruct us that is not right for such a woman to prophesy in the public assembly of the local church, as did the prophets. (IF I miss something brother Don, please bring it to my attention.

In the sense in which these words are being used in chapter 14, I answer both parts of the question "yes"; that prophetesses were included in the meaning/sense of the word "women" in verse 34 (& "woman" in verse 35) AND, that they would not be permitted to address the mixed assembly of the local church (but the prophets sure were). NOTE: This type of prophesying was not to occur simultaneously, but was one prophet at a time, to be pleasing to God.

Don comments:

Both Gary and William have answered, "yes" to my question. In view of their respective positions, I fully anticipated an affirmative answer.

I have affirmed many times that the prophets and prophetesses were doing exactly the same thing (I Cor. 11: 4, 5). I have also stressed that in view of the headship matter and the need for the head covering in the case of the prophetesses, these special inspired men and women at Corinth were functioning in precisely the same circumstance. In other words, on the same occasion, both prophets and prophetesses would prophecy.

I have accused William's position of belittling and deprecating the prophetesses. Through various maneuvers, William in our exchange on I Corinthians 11: 1-16, reduced "prophesying" to uninspired teaching (in order to have present day application). Now, I believe both William and Gary are seen undervaluing the work and nature of the prophetesses. Why do I say this?

I submit that the prophets and prophetesses were considered equal in as far as the inspiration of what they taught and foretold (I Cor. 11: 4, 5). This being the case, why would Paul write in the case of prophetesses, "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home...." (I Cor. 14: 35). I kindly submit that the "yes" answer provided by both Gary and William to my above question makes the prophetess inferior to her prophet husband. If the "husbands" are not the prophets, then the "yes" answer underrates the prophetesses even more. In other words, let these inspired prophetesses who do not know something ask their uninspired husbands at home.

I maintain that the evidence and influence of the context shows that Paul is not addressing or including in his address the prophetesses of chapter eleven. Moreover, I continue to stress that the "women" were in all probability the uninspired wives of the prophets. I Corinthians is one of the earliest written books comprising the New Testament canon. Hence, knowledge outside of miraculous inspiration was sparse. Prophecy was one of the main sources of the infusion of knowledge at the time of I Corinthians. I believe "let them ask their husbands at home" certainly implies some capability on the part of these husbands and more capability than the inquiring wives. This is one reason I have insisted that the circumstances of I Corinthians 11 and chapter 14: 34, 35 are unrelated. Therefore, it does harm to try to use chapter 14: 34, 35 to regulate chapter 11: 4-16. These prophetesses were doing exactly the same work and in the same places as their male counter-parts the prophets. They, I repeat, were the exception to I Timothy 2: 12. Gary and William appear to be unable to acknowledge the unique, indigenous, and peculiar nature of the covering circumstance of chapter 11. Therefore, they seem to be not properly relating these two texts (chapter 11 and 14).

I again thank Gary and William for their interest in studying God's word. I also thank them for their interest in others and me. They view me as wrong in saying that I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 pertained to certain women at Corinth asking questions in a way that appears to have been causing confusion and constituting headship insubordination and that this is what is meant by "keep silent." While I disagree, I commend and thank them for seeking to teach their convictions in this matter.

I shall now watch for rebuttal comments from Gary and William and then Gary's first question.

Don Martin to Gary Reed, William Henderson, and the list:

Gary, I appreciate your timely reply and your comments. To the question of were the prophetesses of I Corinthians 11: 4-16 included in the command to, "Let you women keep silence in the churches...And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home...," you answered, "yes."

I have maintained all the while that I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and chapter 14: 34, 35 are unrelated, involving different women and circumstances. I have tried to show this to be the case by pointing out that by you and William Henderson answering "yes" to my question one (referenced above), you are deprecating the prophetess and her work. I thought for sure that the fact (so viewed by you) of the inspired prophetess being told to ask her husband, especially her uninspired husband, questions at home would cause you to realize that these texts are different. However, you continue to maintain your initial view.

You realized your quandary as evidenced by what you wrote:

If I understand you correctly, your point is that if I allow that prophetesses are included in the command, "and if any would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home," then I am making the prophecies of the prophetesses take a back seat to the instruction of their husbands. Accordingly, I think your point is that prophetesses must have been excluded from the command else their prophecies would be considered inferior to their husband's wisdom and subject to
their husband's instruction....

Don comments:

Gary, what surprises me is your next comment:

In short, yes, prophetesses are included in the prohibition of 1 Cor. 14: 34-35; but no, prophetesses functioning in their prophetic capacity are not specifically in view when Paul says, "if they would learn anything..."

Don again:

Then, you further explain:

Don, when a prophetess, functioning in her prophetic capacity, desired to learn something, should she ask her husband, or should she listen to the Holy Spirit? The latter of course. And therefore, clearly, when Paul speaks of a woman desiring to learn something and tells her to ask her husband (vs. 35), he must not be talking about a prophetess functioning in her prophetic capacity.

Don further reflects:

Gary, I kindly say that your understanding of the prophetess and her work is clearly different from mine. I just cannot imagine an inspired prophetess that possessed not a scintilla of inferiority relative to her male counter-part, the prophet, being presented, first, as not knowing something, and then being told to ask her uninspired husband at home. As I have pointed out, I Corinthians is one of the first inspired writings that comprise the canon of the New Testament. Serious knowledge was often, therefore, lacking and many looked to such spiritual gifts as prophecy for knowledge. Yet, you have a prophetess being told to ask her husband questions.

You further state:

No, there is no inferiority in the prophecy of the woman, and there is no inconsistency in my saying so. The prophetesses are included in the prohibition of 1 Cor. 14: 34f, but not exclusively so. They are included because they are women; they are to be silent in the assembly because it is a shame for a woman to speak, any woman. And Paul does not leave it at that, but sees fit to drive home the point about just how extensive this injunction is - they shouldn't even ask questions!

Don concludes:

Gary, I think the consequences of your position, as seen above, clearly demonstrate the lack of tenability of your views. I urge you to reread the above and consider what you are saying.

Again, I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is not negating the prophetess from doing her work. The women of our passage were not inspired; hence, they had to ask their husbands questions. As I have maintained, the husbands were men who were considered as knowledgeable and knowing. Thus, I have suggested that in all probability they were the prophets being discussed in the context. The questions being asked were evidently impeding the orderly exercise of the spiritual gifts and were also being asked in such a way as to result in headship insubordination. I say this in view of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. Paul did not teach the prophetess how to dress (head covering) in her circumstance in chapter eleven and then turn around three chapters later and say that she was not to even utter a sound in the assembly and if she had a question, let her ask her husband at home.

Gary, I do thank you for sharing your thoughts and for forthrightly answering my questions and being willing to comment on the answer. I shall now watch for William's responsive post.

Don Martin to William Henderson, Gary Reed, and the list:

Both Gary and William have answer "yes" to my question one asking if they believe the prophetesses of I Corinthians 11: 4-16 were included in the teaching of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. William seems aware of the serious consequences prompted by the "yes" answer.

William wrote:

Don has asked if "prophetesses" were included in the meaning or sense of the word(s) "women" and "woman" in verses 34,35. Don does NOT believe that they were. Don argues that an affirmative answer to this belittles and deprecates the prophetesses. I deny that such has to be the case.

William continues to write:

Don asserts that prophets and prophetesses were doing exactly the same thing in the SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. I AGREE that they both were "prophesying", but I DISAGREE that women who prophesied were allowed by God to remove themselves from their God-given roles at times of prophesying and usurp authority over men while exercising that gift! Don has no scripture, has tried to use an OLD TESTAMENT prophetess in Anna (and other Old Testament prophetesses) who didn't even have to wear an artificial covering according to the law of Moses!

Don comments:

The reference to prophetesses in the Hebrew scriptures was to show that they had the same public role as their male counter-part, the prophets. I have also demonstrated this by presenting the way the gift of prophecy was to be exercised in the local church at Corinth. I have shown that the work of the prophetess was not limited to teaching women and children and, perhaps, some qualified teaching of men, but unlike the teaching that the prophet would do.

William wrote:

If one but properly understands the "b" part of verse 35, "for it is a shame for a woman to speak in church", one will properly realize THAT IS WHY a "prophetess" (or any other woman, for that matter) is not to speak in either an authoritative or non-authoritative way, ask a question, prophesy (in the sense of addressing the mixed audience and usurping authority over the men), etc IN THE CHURCH. It's really not that hard. Don has to go to great lengths in efforts to shore up his unusual theory. I hope the reader can see the great lengths to which Don's "spiritual gifts position" has to go in order to attempt to remove the applicability of BOTH of these texts (chapters 11 AND 14, wherein we are specifically discussing them) for folks today.

Don comments:

I have no problem applying I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. Anytime a woman asks a disruptive question in an assembly and does so in a way to not only cause confusion but also be disrespectful of her husband, she in violation of Paul's teaching (see vs. 33, 40). However, I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 does not have any relationship to I Corinthians 11: 4-16. These are two different texts, addressing two different sets of women, and circumstances. The respective context in each case shows this to be the case. William, in my view, is under pressure and feels compelled to maintain that 14: 34, 35 is telling the prophetess of chapter 11 to remain silent in the assembly and ask her husband questions at home. Imagine the inspired prophetess having to ask her uninspired husband questions at home. Such is the consequence of William's "yes" answer.

William continues:

REGULATION/LIMITATION DOESN'T EQUATE TO INFERIORITY. Is it because the prophetesses would have to LIMIT or "hold back" from using their gift of prophecy at times stated in the text (as to why Don might think this would have them, in his mind, to be made inferior to men)? We are not yet told. But the answer is a big NO, it can't be for that reason for the male prophets were also taught to regulate, limit, or keep their peace/silence at times, as well as male tongue speakers (See I Cor. 14:27,28,29,30,40)! See the point here??? The inferior argument Don promotes really has no weight, brother Don.

Don comments:

William, the point is that you have the inspired prophetess (I Cor. 11) being told to remain silent in the assembly and ask her husband questions at home. As I have pointed out, I Corinthians was among the first books written that comprise the canon of the New Testament. Knowledge was limited and sparse, except for inspired people such as prophets and prophetesses. To understand Paul's teaching as instructing a prophetess who is ignorant to ask her uninspired husband questions is to, indeed, deprecate the prophetess. I am truly sorry that you cannot see this.

William reasoned:

God said "every woman" who prays or prophesies was to cover her head. But, brother Don, in that passage (chapter 11) EXCLUDES ALL WOMEN except for his theory's special class of prophetesses and ONLY WHILE THEY WERE LEADING (praying or prophesying)! In chapter 14, 35b, God instructs, ".for it is a shame for a woman to speak in church" and Don's position EXCLUDES ALL WOMEN except for his theory's special class of prophets' wives ONLY....

Don responds:

William is still not observing one of the most basic rules of Bible study:   considering the context and looking to it for dialectic, definitional, and interpretive influences. Paul never included all women in the head covering command (I Cor. 11: 4-16). In regard to 14: 34, 35, I have said many times that any time a woman does what these women were doing, she also is guilty. Asking disruptive questions and conducting oneself as to be insubordinate is a sin.

William further wrote:

In chapter 14, 35b, God instructs, ".for it is a shame for a woman to speak in church" and Don's position EXCLUDES ALL WOMEN except for his theory's special class of prophets' wives ONLY (and I am not sure but what Don's position would even allow THEM TO SPEAK in the assembly, so long as they were not asking a question of a "prophet", were not causing disruption, and were not exercising authority over men in so speaking??? Is that right, Don?).

Don answers:

I cannot imagine a question being thus asked in the assembly that is not disruptive. When I am preaching, I do not allow male or female to interrupt with questions or comments. I have, however, allowed a special time following a service for questions, both from females and males. William is still ignoring the context of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35, especially verses 33 and 40.

In conclusion, William said:

Don ELEVATES the prophetesses above that which is written! I say this in light of his theory's contention that, in his words, they ".were the exception to I Timothy 2:12."

Don answers:

I have charged William with deprecating the prophetess and her work and William accuses me of elevating the prophetess above what is written. In our exchange on I Corinthians 11: 4-16, I dealt with the prophetess in the Bible and showed how her work was not in any way less than the prophet (cp. Miriam; Deborah; Huldah; and Anna, Ex. 15: 20, 21; Jud. 4: 4-10; 2 Kgs. 22: 14-20; Lk. 2: 36-38).

I continue to appreciate many things about William, but I kindly submit that he is wrong when it comes to a study of prophetesses and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. Again, I see one of William's chief mistakes being lack of awareness and familiarity with context.

Don Martin to Gary Reed, William Henderson, and the list (post one of two):

We have arrived at the question/answer stage of our exchange. I asked my question one and Gary and William both answered it. A discussion followed and then Gary was to ask his question one (my next post). Prefacing Gary's good question, he had some additional comments. I shall attempt to briefly notice these comments and then go directly to Gary's question in post two.

I have stressed that when Gary answered "yes" to my question one (the prophetesses of I Corinthians 11: 4-16 are included in the command to "keep silence" and "ask their husbands at home"), he placed himself in a quandary (having an inspired or Holy Spirit led woman having to ask her uninspired husband for answers to her religious questions). It seems that Gary does not see such a plight as a quandary.

Gary wrote:

I do not at all feel I have a quandary. Actually, while it was clear to me that you imagined a quandary, I had to read your post repeatedly to figure out what quandary you had imagined. It is a contrived quandary, and I thought it likely that the readers would not perceive your point. And so before I answering, I tried to restate it more clearly and succintly so that the readers might understand what I was answering.

Gary Continued:

It is obvious you are assuming all the women in view in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 were necessarily married, although you have not addressed my comments concerning the phrase, "let them ask their own husbands at home."

Don comments:

It says, "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home..." (I Cor. 14: 35).

Gary wrote:

It is also obvious that you are assuming the husbands of the women were prophets, for which there is no evidence at all.

Don comments:

Prophets were just mentioned in the context (I Cor. 14: 29-32). The husbands are presented as being able to provide the answers to satisfy their wives' lack of knowledge (vs. 35). Since I Corinthians is one of the first written epistles forming the canon of the New Testament (knowledge often depending on such people as prophets and prophetesses), I think there is much to suggest these husbands were prophets. I regret that you see "no evidence at all" for this high probability.

Gary goes on:

But now you seem to assume that if a woman were a prophetess, and if she had a question, that her question would necessarily be about the very thing concerning which she had revelation from God. And it seems you assume that on the basis of a conception of prophets and prophetesses that is indeed entirely different than mine. You seem to think that a prophetess could not lack knowledge about anything. You say, "I just cannot imagine an inspired prophetess...being presented...as not knowing something."

Don answers:

Gary, after all is said and done, you still have an inspired prophetess having to ask her uninspired husband religious questions. Hence, I have suggested that your position deprecates the prophetesses of the Bible. Paul wrote one chapter earlier, "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries..." (I Cor. 13: 2). I just cannot understand why you do not see your quandary of having prophetesses included in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. I grant that being a prophet or prophetess in the first century did not necessarily mean possessing definitive knowledge on all subjects, but to have a prophetess in a position of having to ask her uninspired husband for answers is really untenable.

Gary corrects me:

You speak of "an inspired prophetess." I had assumed such language on your part was merely imprecise speech. But now I think it may reflect a fundamental misunderstanding. It is not the man or the woman that is inspired; it is the word of God that is inspired. The scriptures are God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). We should speak of the man or woman as speaking by inspiration, but not as being themselves inspired.

Don answers:

In my exchange with William (the precursor to this exchange) I took the time to qualify "inspired" (God breathed, theopneustos, 2 Tim. 3: 16). I thought you would understand the idiom "inspired prophetess" without me having to take space to explain. As I have said many times, these prophetesses spoke and taught by the impetus of the Holy Spirit (cp. 2 Pet. 1: 21). While the Spirit did not necessarily and directly place within them a replete resident reservoir of miraculous information, as the Spirit spoke through them, they were certainly in a position to hear what they themselves taught on various occasions. Hence, they would have more access to truth than the ordinary person or in the case of your prophetess in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35, more knowledge than their husband who lacked the gift of prophecy. I suppose you would also view an apostle as having no advantage in general, only when the Spirit spoke through him.

Please see post two and the question/answer.

Don Martin to Gary Reed, William Henderson, and the list:

I appreciate Gary's time and knowledge. I also thank Gary for his question one. Question one asks:

Is it wrong (I'm not asking if it is merely inadvisable, nor if it is merely poor judgment - I'm asking if it is sinful) for a woman to sit in her seat during the assembly and read aloud a list of those who are ill, the list having been prepared by a man and given to her? I stipulate that she sits in her seat lest you say by standing up front she assumes a position of authority. For the same reason, I stipulate that the list is prepared by a man and given to her. So, do you believe God's word forbids this? I say yes, based on 1 Cor. 14: 33b-35. What say you? Please provide a scriptural basis for your response.

And if you say yes, she may do that, may she also announce the song numbers for the day, the list having been prepared for her by a man? And if you say yes, she may do that, may she also serve as translator for a man, who does not speak English, as he reads a passage from the Bible without further comment? And if you say yes, she may do that, then in the assembly may she also read from the inspired scriptures herself, aloud, without making any additional comment? And if not, why not? How is she doing anything different than what you believe a prophetess of the 1st century was permitted to do?

Don comments:

I like Gary's question because it places pressure on me and pins down what I am saying. I assume in Gary's example, men are present in the assembly. Let me preface my answer by saying that I think the prohibition of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 possesses specificity. These were questions being asked that evidently placed the woman in an insubordinate position (reference to the way in which the question was asked, I believe, vs. 34). They also, I believe, are questions that are disruptive. I say this because of the context, before and after (vs. 33, 40). Hence, I do not think Gary's good question focuses in on the understood action of our study verses and the reason for the command, "keep silence...." I want it also clearly understood that the woman today is not to assume the position of the teacher in a mixed audience of men and women (I Tim. 2: 12). In the assembly, the role of the woman is not that of leading prayer or the teacher, but that of "learn in silence" and "subjection" (I Tim. 2: 8-12). Again, though, I think we have digressed from the prophet of I Corinthians 11 and the specific prohibition of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

I have been faced with many efforts to move women toward new roles in the church and assembly. "Let us allow the woman to stand up and address the audience herself regarding her public confession of sin," "why cannot a woman assist with the Lord's table as long as she does not say anything," "why not have women ushers," ad infinitum. Regarding all of such impetus, I have offered strong opposition. I asked one brother what he wanted to see happen next after the woman silently assisted with the Lord's table. "We might could then have a woman make announcements," said he. Having said this, it must be remembered that both Gary and William have agreed that the woman in the assembly is allowed to audibly sing (Eph. 5: 19). Thus, they have consented to some understood qualification of "keep silence" and "...it is not permitted unto them to speak..." (I Cor. 14: 34, 35). I would also include the act of confessing belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God prior to baptism (Rom. 10: 9, 10, Acts 8: 37). Also, both Gary and William have distinguished between the assembly of I Corinthians 14 and the typical class scenario and circumstance.

In view of I Timothy 2: 11, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection," I would have to say it is a sin "for a woman to sit in her seat during the assembly and read aloud a list of those who are ill, the list having been prepared by a man and given to her." (Since I answered "yes" to the first question, the following questions do not apply).

Don Martin to William Henderson, Gary Reed, and the list (post one of two):

Let me say at the onset that I would love to reply word to word and point to point to William's post. However, my friend William has a rather long post that prohibits a detailed reply on my part. As I have said, I shall try to reduce my posts and, William, I would count it a great favor if you could also shorten your posts.

William has now had a responsive post to my reply to the answer that he provided for my question one. My question one was:

In view of the language, "Let your women keep silence in the churches" is Paul including the prophetess and precluding her from any public prophesying in the assembly (prophesying as did the prophets)?

William and Gary both answered, "yes."

Gary has submitted his question one and he and I and now William have responded to Gary's question and my answer. I continue to believe that the primary reason that they and I have such an extremely different view, in some ways, of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is because of the different position we take relative to the head covering teaching resident in I Corinthians 11 and the work and role of the biblical prophetesses (both in the Hebrew scriptures and in the New Testament). I understand that prophetesses were to have on a head covering because of the public work that they did, work that was the same as their male counter-part, the prophets. William it seems in order to try to make the head covering binding on all women today has had to deprecate the work of the prophetess.

I often have trouble following William's reasoning (I am sure William can say the same about me). William tends, I do not say this to be unkind, to lump things together, apples and oranges, and then fires away. We had all three agreed, I thought, that there is a difference between the assembly discussed in I Corinthians 14 and in the typical Bible class arrangement.

However, William wrote:

Don has several inconsistencies. I wonder how he would answer Garys question one of ladies in the simultaneous Bible class arrangement??? Don has no problem with his wife participating "at home" in the activities in Gary's question one. On what basis would Don's position preclude a woman doing such in the simultaneious Bible class arrangement of the local church?

Don comments:

I totally fail to see any correlation between the worship assembly, a Bible class arrangement, and in a dinner event at a private house in which a woman mentions some members who are sick. Such reasoning I have called zig zag. William has used, however, such reasoning regarding trying to extract from a text in which instructions pertaining to the head covering are given to the Spirit prompted prophetess and make it binding on all women today and now he attempts to use I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 in such a way as to preclude the prophetess from having prophesied in the assembly. I cannot follow zig zag reasoning, perhaps I am too linear. I understand that zig zag people are usually highly intelligent and linear people are low on the IQ scale. If this is the case, William is a genius and I am an idiot (William, it will not make me mad if you agree). William has said that I am "circular" in my reasoning. I suppose when you put zig zag and circular thinkers together, you should expect to come up with different conclusions (a little humor).

William stated:

Don thinks that the manner in which I have answered his question one on chapter 14 has me having to have a prophetess being told to ask her husband who is uninspired a question at home. Such is not demanded from the text, nor my answer, nor is such my position on this text.

Don reflects:

William says it is not the case; however, I do not see how it is not. If prophetesses are immediately included in, "...let them ask their husbands at home," and the husbands are "uninspired" (I beg your pardon, Gary), how would it not "have a prophetess being told to ask her husband who is uninspired a question at home?" (Another example of the difference in the reasoning of William and me.)

William wrote:

I have heretofor made an argument that ONE SITUATION GIVEN (among many that are possible) does NOT exclude all other situations as being applicable and used "if any be hungry, let him eat at home" as a parallel illustration. I don't recall Don touching that.

Don responds:

I am sorry, William, I did notice the argument when you originally made it but I honestly did not know what you were saying and I still do not. The women in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 were married women who lacked knowledge in at least some areas. Paul told them to ask them husbands at home rather than ask their questions in the assembly. In view of vs. 33, 40 and teaching pertaining to headship violation in vs. 34, 35 they were apparently asking disruptive questions in such a way as to not be in subjection. With this, you strongly have disagreed and accused me of perverting the passage by making these comments. Again, William, you are not observing the context. This was the ongoing problem in our exchange on I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and the reason you continue to bind the head covering on all women today.

William wrote:

Go back and read it again, more carefully this time please brother Don! But I freely admit, that the prophetess is not to speak in the church. for GOD SAYS, ".for it is a shame for women to speak in church." (I Cor. 14:35b). Don teaches that IT IS NOT A SHAME for prophetesses to speak in the church, but can give no verse to support his assertion!

Don comments:

Both William and Gary have agreed that "keep silence" is qualified and modified; hence, not absolute. I say this because they both have conceded that the women in the assembly is allowed to audibly sing (Eph. 5: 19). I have contended that the "speaking" under review in the passage was specific (vs. 33, 40, 34, 35). Nonetheless, I have said that I think the teaching, "learn in silence" would preclude the female from taking a public role or publicly teaching in the assembly (I Tim. 2: 11, 12). In fact, I might be in agreement in general with Gary and William about many of these matters, but I am saying that I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is not the verse to use. Gary had reprimanded me for using the word "inspired" in connection with prophetess. In the exact sense, what Gary said is correct. I wish that Gary and William would exercise the same precision in the case of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 and not try to use it to discount or preclude I Corinthians 11: 4-16 (the prophetess exercising or gift in public and in the assembly).

Another example seen in our thinking and application (William wrote):

Don says "Anytime a woman asks a disruptive question in an assembly." So, this instruction WOULD APPLY to prophetesses according to Don's writing above. Read it again.. and again. Did I misunderstand you brother Don?

Don answers:

Again, we are seeing the difference between specificity and generality. William uses I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 to argue that all women, including the prophetesses of chapter 11, were to be without sound when the text obviously (it is obvious to me) has specificity. He then chides me with refusing to so use the passage. Yes, William, if a prophetess in the church at Corinth was doing what these women were doing (asking disruptive questions and violating headship acquiescence), the prophetess would be included. William, I am confident you will not relate to what I just said, but will further falsely charge me (I am used to such).

William just cannot begin to understand or appreciate why I think the prophetess was not precluded in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 from doing her work. I have tried to show in the simplest way I can why I believe the prophetess is not so included and the quandary of the position of both Gary and William. William just cannot imagine where I ever dreamed up such a view that the women were probably the wives of the prophets just mentioned in the context and has, again, accused me of perverting the scriptures.

I wrote:

I maintain that the evidence and influence of the context shows that Paul is not addressing or including in his address the prophetesses of chapter eleven. Moreover, I continue to stress that the "women" were in all probability the uninspired wives of the prophets. I Corinthians is one of the earliest written books comprising the New Testament canon. Hence, knowledge outside of miraculous inspiration was sparse. Prophecy was one of the main sources of the infusion of knowledge at the time of I Corinthians. I believe "let them ask their husbands at home" certainly implies some capability on the part of these husbands and more capability than the inquiring wives. This is one reason I have insisted that the circumstances of I Corinthians 11 and chapter 14: 34, 35 are unrelated. Therefore, it does harm to try to use chapter 14: 34, 35 to regulate chapter 11: 4-16. These prophetesses were doing exactly the same work and in the same places as their male counter-parts the prophets. They, I repeat, were the exception to I Timothy 2: 12. Gary and William appear to be unable to acknowledge the unique, indigenous, and peculiar nature of the covering circumstance of chapter 11. Therefore, they seem to be not properly relating these two texts (chapter 11 and 14).

William said:

But what about this matter of the person with a gift of prophecy and Don's view of the extent of that person's ability to "know" God's Will? I don't think Don has studied enough about the difference in the spiritual gifts....

Don comments:

William is doing a good job in driving home his points. I think, though, it is William who does not appreciate the spiritual gifts of the first century, especially prophecy.

Under "prophet" (prophetess), Vine says, "a proclaimer of a divine message, denoted among the Greeks an interpreter of the oracles of gods." The verb propheteuo is used to describe or indicate the work of a prophet, simply put. Thayer says of the prophet (propheteia, noun), "...discourse emanating from divine inspiration...." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, pg. 552). Thayer continued by saying of the verb propheteuo and alludes to I Corinthians 11: 4, 5 as follows: "...to break forth under sudden impulse in lofty discourse or in praise of the divine counsels...or, under the like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others...I Cor. 11: 4, 5....." (Ibid.). Both Gary and William have attempted to escape the quandary of having a Holy Spirit led prophetesses being told to ask religious questions of their "uninspired" husbands at home by deprecating and belittling, in my humble judgement, the work and role of the prophet/prophetess. I have said repeatedly that the prophetess would certainly have advantage over the "normal" person who lacked such miraculous ability. If nothing else, they should have known more just in view of their proximity to the inspired message that they would repeatedly deliver.

I again thank William for his efforts to justify his position that I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is telling in general the prophetess to "keep silence" in the assembly. As I have said, I believe it is evident from a study of Bible prophetesses that they were the exception to the general teaching of I Timothy 2: 12.

Don Martin to Gary Reed, William Henderson, and the list:

While we continue to wait on William to post, Gary has asked me some questions regarding my comments on his question one.

Gary wrote:

I asked if Don supposed that in the assembly a woman might read from the inspired scriptures themselves, aloud, without making any additional comment.

Don declined to give an answer, supposing that none was required because of his answer to a related question.

That leaves me wondering, Don, and speculating. In view of the fact that there is some confusion about whose turn it is to ask a question (at least I'm confused) I'll submit this as speculation and leave it to William to pose a question for your response.

Don comments:

William has said that I did not answer Gary's question and now Gary refers to my response to his question one. As I understood it, Gary had a two part question. If I answered, it is wrong to part one, then I did not need to answer part two. Since I answered, she could not do that to part one, I ignored part two.

Gary asked:

Is it wrong (I'm not asking if it is merely inadvisable, nor if it is merely poor judgment - I'm asking if it is sinful) for a woman to sit in her seat during the assembly and read aloud a list of those who are ill, the list having been prepared by a man and given to her?.... And if you say yes, she may do that, may she also announce the song numbers for the day (I said she could not do that based on "learn in silence" in 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12).

Gary now asks:

Speculation: Don would not object to a woman reading the scriptures aloud in the assembly. Might she do so from the pulpit? What scriptural distinction can we make between the pulpit and the pew? After all, neither is known in scripture.

Alternate speculation: Don would object to a woman reading the scriptures aloud in the assembly. This would be interesting, for she would not be doing anything qualitatively different than what Don supposes the prophetess was permitted to do in the 1st century assembly. She is making no editorial comment. She is communicating only God's word. Now it is true that she gets the word by a different means. The prophetess in the first century would have gotten it by direct revelation whereas the woman today gets it from the printed page. But I don't see how that makes a difference as far as 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 is concerned. So Don objects to a woman doing essentially what he says the prophetess could do?

I think the problem is not in the objection to the woman reading aloud in the assembly today, but in the supposition that the prophetess was permitted to speak in the 1st century assembly. Understanding that 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 applies to all women solves the problem.

Don comments:

This exchange is sure developing an element of confusion. I have said that based on I Timothy 2: 11, 12 ("learn in silence"), the woman in the assemble today has no business doing any of the things concerning which William and Gary have inquired. I have also said many times that the prophetess was the exception to the rule. The Holy Spirit imparted to her the gift of prophecy (I Cor. 12: 8-11, I Cor. 11: 4, 5). This miraculous gift was meant to be used to edify, which included the assembly (I Cor. 14). This is the reason the prophetesses were to have their heads covered in climates that understood the covering as symbolic of subjugation (I Cor. 11: 4-16).

Again, the problem Gary and William are facing is trying to lessen the indigenous nature of the prophetess and the covering. Lets face it, the prophetess posed a special and exceptional situation. The prophetess circumstance cannot be duplicated today (I Cor. 13: 8-10). Hence, the head covering is irrelevant. As I have contended, to attempt to force the prophetess into the "women" if I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 and also bind the head coving on all women today is to present an anachronism (taking subjects and actions inapplicable to the present time and binding them today). The prophetess was obviously the exception because of the gift she possessed (I Cor. 11: 4-16). Since we do not have prophetesses and prophecy today, women, all women are under the restriction of I Timothy 2: 12. Women today have no place helping with the Lord's table, making announcements publicly or from their seat, regardless of a male providing her with the list or not providing the list. For a women to mention some sick members in a class circumstance or at a dinner at a member's house are different matters.

Gary, thanks for the clarification. I do not know how to answer more concisely than I just did. I shall continue to watch for William's question one.

Don Martin to William Henderson, Gary Reed, and the list (William's question one):

William states:

PROPHETESSES: INCLUDED AND EXCLUDED IN I COR. 14: 34, 35??? Don teaches two ideas that seem to conflict, namely, that prophetesses ARE NOT INCLUDED in the instruction in I Cor. 14: 34, 35 (note: I mentioned BOTH verses, brother Don) AND that prophetesses, if they were to ask questions in the assembly in a certain fashion ARE INCLUDED in the instruction in I Cor. 14:34,35! Is this correct, brother Don? IF SO, please unravel the spaghetti/conflict, don't just say you have been falsely accused by others before, deal with harmonizing the two.

Don replies:

William, I have explained this mystery to you many times. In view of these particular women in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 being married, not knowing the answers to their questions, but being told to ask their "uninspired husbands" (I believe their husbands were the prophets just mentioned in the context, the ones likely to know the answers), and the immediately preceding and subsequent verses mentioning confusion and contumacy, I believe the teaching of our study passage has specificity and not simple generality. However, had a woman, any woman at Corinth (including a prophetess), been doing what these women were evidently doing, they would be wrong and would thus fit into the scope of the passage (vs. 33, 40). I do believe that "keep silence" is specific and pertains to the action being presented and understood. They were to be "without sound" in the circumstances addressed. I believe, however, I Timothy 2: 8-12 is general and restricts the woman (non-prophetess at Corinth) from doing anything in the assembly other than "learning in silence." I say this with the before acknowledged understanding that the woman is allowed to audibly sing in the assembly and to confess Christ as the Son of God anterior to baptism (Eph. 5: 19; Rom. 10: 1-10). William, I cannot be plainer or simpler, I am sorry.

William's question one:

QUESTION ONE:
Brother Don (and Gary, if you like), are the following activities WRONG? IF NO, please give a scripture if you can. Please note that the "setting" changes in G-K, but I have a particular reason for asking those questions. Thanks. ALSO, G-K may require TWO answers, if you make a distinction between "at home" and "the simultaneous Bible class arrangement" with regards to "away from the assembly of the local church" to the degree that you have different answers in that regard.

NOTE: IF your answer is YES that it is wrong, PLEASE BE SURE TO IDENTIFY whether one or both (or a different) passage(s) applies: namely, the teachings of I Cor. 14: 34, 35, (those verses specifically, now) and I Tim. 2:11,12 to the situations/scenarios below:

A. A PROPHETESS MARRIED TO A PROPHET, innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement), and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

B. A PROPHETESS NOT MARRIED TO A PROPHET, BUT MARRIED TO A SAINT WHO IS UNINSPIRED, innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement), and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

C. A PROPHETESS NOT MARRIED TO A PROPHET, BUT MARRIED TO AN ALIEN, innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement), and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

D. An PROPHET'S WIFE WHO IS UNINSPIRED, innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement) and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

E. An UNMARRIED UNINSPIRED WOMAN (virgin, non-virgin or widow), innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement) and asking a question in the assembly of the local church.

F. An UNMARRIED INSPIRED WOMAN (virgin, non-virgin or widow), innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement) and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

G. A PROPHETESS WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking him a question "at home"?

H. A PROPHETESS WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking ANOTHER MAN (other than her husband, like a man more knowledgeable in the scriptures whether inspired or not) a question away from the assembly of the local church?

I. A PROPHETESS WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking ANOTHER WOMAN (like a woman who had great knowledge of the scriptures, whether she had the gift of knowledge or no inspiration at all) a question away from the assembly of the local church?

J. AN UNINSPIRED WOMAN WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking ANOTHER MAN (other than her husband, like a man more knowledgeable in the scriptures whether inspired or not) a question away from the assembly of the local church?

K. AN UNINSPIRED WOMAN WHO IS NOT MARRIED ASKING A MAN (like a man more knowledgeable in the scriptures whether inspired or not) a question away from the assembly of the local church?

Don here:

I do not mind William's question. However, I find it amusing that William has commented on my compound questions (very brief, I might add, by comparison). I shall attempt to copy and paste and insert a brief answer and comment.

A. A PROPHETESS MARRIED TO A PROPHET, innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement), and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

Answer:  Such a question reflects William's continued misunderstanding of the Bible prophetess. No, I do not believe such is in Paul's mind or included in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

B. A PROPHETESS NOT MARRIED TO A PROPHET, BUT MARRIED TO A SAINT WHO IS UNINSPIRED, innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement), and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

Answer: Ibid.

C. A PROPHETESS NOT MARRIED TO A PROPHET, BUT MARRIED TO AN ALIEN, innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement), and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

Answer: Ibid.

D. An PROPHET'S WIFE WHO IS UNINSPIRED, innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement) and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

Answer: I do not believe I Corinthians 14: 33-40 is addressing this event, as such (such assumes a question could have been asked in the assembly in a way that was not disruptive). As I believe there were and are better ways of dealing with questions, I would not encourage such a practice today, even as you have qualified it.

E. An UNMARRIED UNINSPIRED WOMAN (virgin, non-virgin or widow), innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement) and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

Answer: As I believe there are better ways of dealing with questions, I would not encourage such a practice, even as you have qualified it.

F. An UNMARRIED INSPIRED WOMAN (virgin, non-virgin or widow), innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement) and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

Answer: Such a question reflects William's continued misunderstanding of the Bible prophetess.

G. A PROPHETESS WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking him a question "at home"?

Answer: Such a question reflects William's continued misunderstanding of the Bible prophetess. No, I do not believe such is in Paul's mind or included in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

H. A PROPHETESS WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking ANOTHER MAN (other than her husband, like a man more knowledgeable in the scriptures whether inspired or not) a question away from the assembly of the local church?

Answer: Such a question reflects William's continued misunderstanding of the Bible prophetess. No, I do not believe such is in Paul's mind or included in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

I. A PROPHETESS WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking ANOTHER WOMAN (like a woman who had great knowledge of the scriptures, whether she had the gift of knowledge or no inspiration at all) a question away from the assembly of the local church?

Answer: Such a question reflects William's continued misunderstanding of the Bible prophetess. No, I do not believe such is in Paul's mind or included in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

J. AN UNINSPIRED WOMAN WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking ANOTHER MAN (other than her husband, like a man more knowledgeable in the scriptures whether inspired or not) a question away from the assembly of the local church?

Answer: William, I do not understand any relevance between this question and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. No scripture condemns such.

K. AN UNINSPIRED WOMAN WHO IS NOT MARRIED ASKING A MAN (like a man more knowledgeable in the scriptures whether inspired or not) a question away from the assembly of the local church?

Answer: William, I do not understand any relevance between this question and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. No scripture condemns such.

Don Martin to William Henderson, Gary Reed, and the list:

William, you evidently did not like the way I answered your question one. Here is the problem: You have presented me with a tangled, arbitrarily interspersed, and ill-matched assortment of matters. I know you do not see this in this manner, but I do. Therefore, I cannot simply answer "yes" or "no" to a lot of your ideas.

I have said over and over that I do not believe "keep silence in the churches" in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is a simple and general matter of prohibiting women, including the prophetess of chapter eleven, from making a sound. Hence, it is difficult for me to answer questions emanating from your concept of what is happening in the study passage. Take the following examples:

Regarding C of your question:

C. A PROPHETESS NOT MARRIED TO A PROPHET, BUT MARRIED TO AN ALIEN, innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement), and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

To this I answered thus:

Answer: Such a question reflects William's continued misunderstanding of the Bible prophetess. No, I do not believe such is in Paul's mind or included in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

William, I think strictly in terms of placement and contextual meaning. Hence, I cannot imagine a prophetess having to ask a religious question of her "uninspired husband" who is not even a Christian. You do not have this problem in view of your understanding of a prophetess. Moreover, I really cannot imagine a woman asking a question in the religious assembly without it being disruptive. I have had several people try to ask me a question while I was preaching and it was disruptive. In one case, the woman was also insubordinate. The Bible classes and "formal worship" services with which I am familiar have a different structure and format. The Bible classes that I teach lend themselves to questions without confusion; the service in which the Lord's Supper is observed does not. Therefore, my mind will not work as does your mind in these matters.

Part J of your question was:

J. AN UNINSPIRED WOMAN WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking ANOTHER MAN (other than her husband, like a man more knowledgeable in the scriptures whether inspired or not) a question away from the assembly of the local church?

To this I answered:

Answer: William, I do not understand any relevance between this question and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. No scripture condemns such.

You wrote regarding my answers:

"Don, I don't ask you questions over and over to try to get you to answer them like I want you to, per se, but to get you to answer them (in full)!!! On Gary's Question One, and on my Question One, you either have not fully read the question, don't understand the question, or (un)intentionally did not answer it in full. Why not, good brother?"

William continued:

Also, please clear up the spaghetti, brother Don, between your contention that I Tim. 2:11,12 is assembly only...I have taken you to mean "assembly of the local church only" up to your last posts (4-1-03). Now, it seems that you call any gathering to study the Bible (2 or more people) an "assembly". I believe such is equivocation (if you are using the same word and switching definitions back and forth), so please explain how it is not equivocation...since we have been discussing I Cor. 14:34,35 IS assembly only (of the local church) instruction (which also contains some non-assembly authorization <g>). Did I miss something?

Don comments:

William, it was you who introduced the Bible class and the dinner at home setting into our discussion. You have also asked about a woman teaching men in a secular circumstance, teaching a secular subject. I have tried to address each of these. You accuse me above of being guilty of equivocation. Here is what I said and I cannot say it any plainer:

"William, I have dealt with the immediately above many times. I do not believe it is necessarily wrong for a woman to teach a college class secular subjects. It would be wrong, however, for a woman to assume the position of teacher in a home Bible class involving men, as explained above. While such is not the assembly of I Timothy 2, it is a religious assembly. I trust this will not be confusing."

As I have said, I Timothy 2: 8-12 is an assembly passage just as I Corinthians 14. I have agreed that there are some general principles. William, I believe what is happening is you are judging what I say by your own concepts and understanding. Yes, in this event there is the element of incongruity.

William wrote:

UNinspired women are not "inferior", and they have to be silent in the church...why would prophetesses be "inferior" if God instructs them to be silent in the church? (NOTE: Some UNinspired women know LOTS MORE than some men about scripture, yet God prohibits women from speaking in the assembly of the local church, but such does NOT make them inferior, Don argues it does, tho he hasn't written that about uninspired women! Please deal with this argument).

Don comments:

William, I am afraid we have gone separate ways in our thinking to the point that we have lost all communication. The point that I have made is to understand Paul telling the prophetess to be without sound in the assembly and ask their "uninspired" husbands questions at home does deprecate the work and role of the prophetess.

William, I am afraid we have totally lost ability to reason together. I am sorry this has happened.

You wrote:

Don did not directly answer my question one. Did you notice that dear readers? Don told us many times that he didn't think such a scenario as I asked was in the mind of Paul or the teaching of I Cor. 14: 34,35...but did Don tell us (in each matter asked) whether he believes the situation was RIGHT or WRONG??? No!

Don concludes:

William, at this stage, I frankly do not know what else to say. Again, we are not communicating. I still think that the primary disparity that we have goes back you believing and teaching that all women today must have on a head covering. The wires started to become crossed in our first exchange as you had to do a number of things to move from the "inspired" prophetess of I Corinthians 11: 4-16 being told to be covered in her circumstances to all women having to be covered. I am truly sorry we are reaching this impasse, but I still think this discussion has been good. We both have made our primary points as to our view of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

Don Martin to the list (post one of two):

First, I appreciate the participation of William Henderson and Gary Reed in the I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 exchange. I personally think we pretty well exhausted the passage without engaging in endless repetition. The essential difference that remained is that William and Gary contend that, "...let you women keep silence in the churches..." is a blanket statement that included and presently embraces all women in the assembly. They have insisted on an absolute application even to the point of excluding the prophetesses addressed in chapter eleven from speaking in the assembly. However, they both have admitted to at least one exception: The female audibly singing in the assembly (Eph. 5: 19). They have maintain that I have perverted the passage when I make the prophetess the exception, but they make singing the exception. They justify this (I concur) on the basis of Ephesians 5: 19 and I justify the prophetess being an exception based on I Corinthians 11:
4-16.

I have contended that the gift of prophecy was designedly a gift to be used in public. I have illustrated this with the case of Bible prophetesses, particularly Anna (Lk. 2: 36-38). While I did not limit I Corinthians 11: 4-16 to the assembly, I said that I thought any public place, including the assembly was where the prophetess along with the prophet did their work of prophesying. This is especially seen when we realize that the miraculous gift of prophecy was a primary means of edifying the assembled local church (I Cor. 14). I asked the question as to why Paul would devote so much time to regulating the public work of the prophetess and then three chapters later say that the prophetess was not to make a sound in the assembly (I Cor. 14: 34, 35). I have tried to kindly show that I believe the views of both William and Gary undervalue and deprecate the Bible prophetess.

Both William and Gary took the position that the prophetesses were included in the prohibition to speak in the assembly and were told to ask questions of their husbands at home (cp. I Cor. 14: 34, 35). They both maintained that prophetesses were to ask their "uninspired husbands" religious questions at home (I maintained that their husbands were probably the prophets, those who would more likely know the answers, just mentioned in the context). I used their teaching to show that the prophetess was not included in the prohibition. The very thought of a Spirit led prophetess being told to ask her "uninspired" and even "non-Christian" husband (according to William's expanded application) religious questions at home is, to me, untenable!

In order to bind the head covering on all women today, William had to use various methods and processes to reduce "prophesying" to "uninspired teaching" (cp. I Cor. 11: 4, 5). In the case of 14: 34, 35, William reduces the prophetess to one looking to an unbeliever husband for answers to religious questions.

I have presented contextual reasons and extractions from the passage as to why I think, "...let women keep silence in the churches..." in the passage is special and specific. First of all, these particular women were married ("...let them ask their husbands at home..."). The particular speaking that they were doing was, "...a shame..." (I Cor. 14: 35). I submitted that their speaking was specific, they were asking questions of their husbands. Moreover, I have shown that the questions that they posed to their husbands in the assembly were both:

1. Productive of and instrumental to confusion (I Cor. 14: 33, 40).

2. The way these women were interrogating their husbands in the assembly also constituted insubordination of headship; hence, the language: "...but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law...for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor. 14: 34, 35).

Hence, I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is a specific passage that addresses a specific situation and circumstance. The matter is duplicated today when women ask their husbands disruptive questions and conduct themselves in the asking of these questions in such a way as to be in disobedience to their husbands. This act would be an exact parallel to the matter addressed in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. William and Gary have not agreed and have said that I have arbitrarily added these details.

Don Martin to the list (post two of two):

I Timothy 2: 8-12 is a general assembly passage, I suggested, that is designed for general application. The female in general is not to lead in public prayer and is not to assume the posture of the teacher (vs. 8, 12). Her posture is that of, "...learn in silence with all subjection...but to be in silence" (I Tim. 2: 11, 12). In answer to a repeated question posed by William, I have said that I really do not see how a woman, my wife, to have what I view as a parallel, could interrupt my sermon and ask me a question in the assembly without it causing confusion (cp. I Cor. 14: 33-35). I have also shown that the female does not have the role to attempt to provide explanation or elucidation regarding a point her husband is making in a sermon by posing a question, she is to learn "in silence" (I Tim. 2: 11). William has not liked or accepted my answers.

Regarding William's multiple part (about 11 parts) first question, he accused me of not answering, but evading his question(s). I did answer but I also said:

"Here is the problem: You have presented me with a tangled, arbitrarily interspersed, and ill-matched assortment of matters. I know you do not see this in this manner, but I do. Therefore, I cannot simply answer 'yes' or 'no' to a lot of your ideas."

However, William has continued to accuse me of not answering. Here is what I said in answering part C (represented of the first series of parts): "Regarding C of your question:

C. A PROPHETESS NOT MARRIED TO A PROPHET, BUT MARRIED TO AN ALIEN, innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement), and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

To this I answered thus:

Answer: Such a question reflects William's continued misunderstanding of the Bible prophetess. No, I do not believe such is in Paul's mind or included in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35."

Relative to part J (representative of the second set of parts), I said:   "Part J of your question was:

J. AN UNINSPIRED WOMAN WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking ANOTHER MAN (other than her husband, like a man more knowledgeable in the scriptures whether inspired or not) a question away from the assembly of the local church?

To this I answered:

Answer: William, I do not understand any relevance between this question and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. No scripture condemns such.

As I said, I believe we have sufficiently covered and discussed I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. William has said, in mentioning his disfavor with closing the exchange, that he had planned on discussing what I have said in our first exchange (I Corinthians 11: 4-16) was Spirit led prayer (I Cor. 14: 15). However, I Corinthians 14: 15 is really not immediately germane to 14: 34, 35.

It has been my decision to end my part in this exchange because I basically believe we have covered the primary bases. In addition to the reason Gary mentioned, I also believe William's delays in responding have been a part of the lack of communication. I understand that William has a secular job and I am not meaning to necessarily fault William in this matter.

The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is: The person, work, and role of the prophetess does not even pertain to us today because the gift of prophesy has ceased (I Cor. 13: 8, 11: 4-16). Paul's special teaching that was only given to the prophetess in her circumstance and proximity to the prophet regarding the head covering that apparently was emblematic of headship subjection in that culture does not apply today simply because we do not have prophetesses or women who exceptionally teach in a public capacity (I Tim. 2: 12). In regards to 14: 34, 35, the passage is specific and did not necessarily and automatically preclude the prophetess from prophesying in the assembly.

I regret that William, Gary, and I have ended this exchange with remaining differences (I believe that William and Gary basically agree regarding the head covering being applicable today and that 14: 34, 35 precluded the prophetesses from speaking in the assembly). However, I believe the exchange has served to provide impetus and material for further study for all who are interested in a serious study of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. I again thank William and Gary, the list owners for providing this medium, and all of you who have followed this exchange.

Don Martin to Gary Reed and the list:

Regarding the ending of our exchange on I Corinthians 14: 34, 35, Gary has brought up a point that deserves a brief comment. Gary, William, and I have tried not to misrepresent one another. The more that are involved in an exchange, the more of a challenge this becomes (statements can be confused and attributed to another).

Gary wrote:

I don't think that I discussed "singing" at any time in this discussion. I do not regard singing as "the exception" to 1 Cor. 14:33bff.

Don comments:

I appreciate Gary correcting me. I do not have the exchange in its totality on my hard drive. However, I did carefully go back over all I have and I did find numerous references that I make throughout the exchange in which I said with growing certainty that I thought Gary made singing (Eph. 5: 19) the exception to "...keep silence in the churches" (I Cor. 14: 34, 35).

Here is my first reference made toward the inception of the exchange: "I have also said that qualification must be understood relative to "keep silence in the churches" (sigatosan ai gunaikes en tais ekklesiais). The example that I have provided is the command to sing (Eph. 5: 19). Both William and Gary appear to agree."

At the end of this post, there are other quotations from the exchange. In view of Gary's lack of denial throughout the exchange, I concluded that this was, in deed, the case. However, I do apologize to Gary if in fact he did not concede Ephesians 5: 19 as being an exception to women speaking in the church. I do find Gary's rationale for not including Ephesians 5: 19 as an exception of interest.

Gary wrote:

Congregational singing wherein one voice is joined with a chorus of others is simply not addressed in a context where the topic is speaking one at a time, that is, in such a fashion as to have the floor. Singing is not an exception. It simply isn't the kind of thing that is being discussed. And if I were to try to make singing an exception, I certainly would not do so based on Ephesians 5:19. But in fact, I don't see the need to squeeze any exceptions into 1 Cor. 14:33bff. I take the passage to mean what it says, taking care to make it mean nothing more than what it says.

Don comments:

Gary employs in the above the exact same logic that I have used to show that I believe I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is specific and is not even in general discussing women making a noise in the assembly. I have used I Timothy 2: 11, 12 to show that women today are to, "...learn in silence." I have shown from I Corinthians 14: 33, 40 that questions that are disruptive are not to be asked of a husband (probably the prophets in the context), but the wife is to wait until they are at home. The sound made by these women was specific and the result was specific. I do believe I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is a contextually abused passage. I say this with the understanding that in most cases I would agree overall with statements made about women not "speaking in the assembly" but unless they were causing confusion, etc. with their speaking, I would use other verses and not I Corinthians 14: 33-40.

Here are some additional statements that I made at different time intervals in the exchange that were never denied (unless I missed the denials):

"Having said this, it must be remembered that both Gary and William have agreed that the woman in the assembly is allowed to audibly sing (Eph. 5: 19)."

"Both William and Gary have agreed that 'keep silence' is qualified and modified; hence, not absolute. I say this because they both have conceded that the women in the assembly are allowed to audibly sing (Eph. 5: 19)."

"However, they both have admitted to at least one exception:  The female audibly singing in the assembly (Eph. 5: 19)."