Replies

There are assemblies in which these standards are observed. (imardmd1)

IOW, no, the women are not permitted to speak at all inside the church ... (metmom)

You were here using "church" to describe the building constructed to house the assembly. This is not a NT useage of the word "church." You misapplied both the Scriptural conditions regarding silence, and attributing to me something about the application of the pertinent passages that I did not say. I believe your intent was to deliberately read into Scripture something that is not there. This is eisegesis. You are also attempting to trivialize the common sense of the passages by seeming to make their clear logical meaning illogical. You also seem to be trying to induce contempt for the clear explanation of The Holy Spirit's non-negotiable imperatives, so that the modernistic mindset may be advanced.

The behavior within the church house and outside the place and time of the conduct assemblage is not within view in this observation. Please do not bring in this extraneous and irrelevant issue to try to falsify the clear Scriptural commands being discussed.

Now, of the "assemblies" which I spoke, this would be the use of translation of "ekklesia" into "church" or "assembly" as referring to a formal association of believers organized to function as a localized body of The Christ. They have standards, both written and unwritten but commonly taught and understood, by which they operate. In particular, the clear command "Let your women keep silence in the churches:" is not a suggestion. Here, the word "ekklesiais" = "churches" = "assemblies" refers to the condition of the process whenever any assembly is congregated for the purpose of public worship and/or instruction. The term "keep silence" is the verb "sigaoh" which means to be still, or in verse 30, to hold one's peace.

If you think this only applies to women, think again. The context also demands that any man is also to keep silence, unless he is under permission to speak. In this ranking the woman is considered to be a subordinate at least to a "bishop," "elder," or "deacon" (Scripturally all to be spiritually mature men), and therefore, since they are to keep silence, so is she as a subordinate. Furthermore, if she has a husband, and he is present and whether he is silent or speaking, she is to demonstrate her Scriptural submission to his authority by her silence as his subordinate. "... for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but to be under obedience, as also saith The Law." Here, The Law is the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses -- the speaking as a contributor to the teaching/preaching in the assembly was not permitted then; it is, seamlessly and ubsurprisingly, not allowed now. To speak = "la-leh-oh" is, in this context, is to address the company assembled in its normal conduct as a part of the session (other than utterance for an emergency, for example). Most certainly there will be no womanly "glossolalia."

But regarding teaching or attempting to exercise authority over a/the man (as you are trying here, metmom), the passage from 1 Timothy 2:11-12 comes into play, most especially where the whole assembly is in session. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection." Again, this is not a suggestion. There are no escape clauses. In the session of the assembly, with elders conducting teaching, and other men present, the role of women and men present, the conduct expected of subordinates is to learn with the respect of silence = "hesuchia" = quietness. This is "a tranquillity arising from within oneself, causing no disturbance to others" (Vine's). No whispering, no chattering, no fidgeting, no gum-chewing, no preening, no movements to attract attention -- these are indicators of self-control, which is one facet of spiritual maturity, especially as an example to children in attendance.

1 Cor. 14:35 continues to say "... for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Here, shame = "aischron" means "sinfully indecent," that which is opposed to modesty or purity. one deduces then that the group pretending to be "Christian," obeying the commands of The Christ and walking in His Ways (following Him), yet permitting, encouraging, yea demanding rampant control of feminism over the conduct of assembly sessions, demonstrates deliberate sinful indecency to itself, to the Christian community, to the onlooking angels, and to the cheering worldlings whose fundamental loyalty is to thir father, the god of this world.

Regarding the teaching of doctrine, or exercising authority over the believing man, this is not one of the many needed functions that The God has allotted for women to practice. In fact, when she tries, she begins to usurp, to take a role not given. When "a woman's work is never done," is this yet another responsibility she would want to take on? Especially that The God has disallowed? Moreover, in the function of the ekklesia? Think this one out. By requiring the men to fill this role under the authority of The Christ, both the rewards and the blame will fall on them. A woman attempting this will find only blame. At the "bema," that is. Of course, flat-out disobedience of these commands is not the best way to demonstrate much spiritual maturity or stature.

... and it sounds like singing is out, too. (metmom)

No, you miss out on this. When the time for the assembly to raise a vocal offering from the heart in remembrance, submission, thanks, and praise (Eph 5:19-21, Col. 3:16, Heb. 13:15) clearly the silence is momentarily broken for all, and participation is Scripturally expected. This is not a confusion of each one singing one's own song -- it is unity of word and voice by which we are all invited to admonish one another, from new-born baby Christians to spiritual fathers, through the form of psalms, hymns, spiritual songs sung in union.

Here's where the rubber meets the road: in your diatribe, what form of excuses are you trying to find to allow ignoring or rejecting compliance with God's instructions regarding the conduct of the ekklesia when summoned out and in session?

So those who don't do it your way are not spiritually mature and don't take their relationship with the Lord seriously? How legalistic. (metmom)

The above is not "my way" -- I didn't lay out the constitution, process, and program of the functioning of the ekklesia. If you don't like it, take it up with Him -- it's His Way, He wrote the manual. And yes, to reject His Plan may be not only spiritually immature, one may be playing by the rules of the oppositionally defiant side. Compliance with His commands is not legalism. It is playing by His rules, with a great dread of dismaying, disappointing, or disobeying Him by defeating His purposes. (Psalm 128:1)

I am not considering this as an opportunity to find fault or display any superiority, but as a chance for you to rethink and others to consider a greater fellowship with the Lord in His obedient service in and to the ekklesia, exercising growth in the fruit of the Spirit. With regard and unfeigned love for the brethren --

Do you consider, with regard to women speaking in the "time of the assemblage", that Paul was teaching this because it closely went along with the standard behavioral norms of the Jewish synagogue at that time as well as the cultural norms? Women in the synagogues sat separately from the men. Do you also consider that there are exceptions in the condition that women MAY speak during that time if requested or invited by the male leadership, and therefore she is not usurping authority over men? Also, WRT cultural norms, women were supposed to have long hair and not wear clothing that men wore. Do you think this applies in today's time? Do all your women in your assembly have to wear their hair long and not be allowed to wear pants?

I read what you have said, and it DOES sound somewhat legalistic, archaic and demeaning to women and their place within the Body of Christ today. Certainly not all women are married or have a husband who is able to teach them. I graduated from a Bible College and my husband, who is a devoted Christian, asks ME about Biblical matters and doctrine. He IS the leader in our home and I respect his authority as well as his responsibility, but I do not look down on him because he is not the Bible teacher in our marriage. Is it the "ideal" that husbands be the spiritual leaders? Perhaps. But that does not make it mandatory in order to have a right relationship with Christ. Just as Scripture says each man should be "fully persuaded in his own mind" about such issues as feast days and sabbaths, so must each believer answer to God personally for every area of their lives. There WERE women deacons in the early church, most likely "servants" or "ministers" and not necessarily an "office" of a deacon:

Phoebe is most likely identified as a woman deacon of the church at Cenchrea in Romans 16:1 (affirmed by complementarian commentators such as Douglas Moo [NICNT] and Thomas Schreiner [BECNT]). Paul’s mention of women deacons coheres well with his earlier prohibition of women serving in teaching or ruling functions over men (1 Tim. 2:12) and his lack of mention of women elders in 1 Timothy 3:1–7.

Since being a deacon does not involve teaching or ruling, women as well as men are eligible to serve in this capacity. Note that there is no requirement of marital faithfulness in the case of women deacons (cf. 1 Timothy 3:2, 12), presumably because male marital infidelity was common while female infidelity was not, and possibly also because women deacons were not necessarily expected to be married (some may have been widows or single).

Many conservative churches are hesitant to appoint women deacons because deacons often have a governing role. They fear that having women deacons may suggest theological liberalism, since Scripture does not permit women to serve in governing positions (see esp. 1 Tim. 2:12; 5:17). However, the problem here is not women deacons but the unbiblical understanding of the role of deacon. (http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/women-deacons/)

Finally, God "gifts" the church with those who:

I Cor. 12:27-31 "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts."

The greater gifts are obviously those that edify the church, the believers. Ephesians 4:11-13 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

We are all one in Christ and God has given to the church those that edify the believers within it, all to his glory.