Are women allowed to Preach?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,388
5,729
113
There are no Greek words in those verses now. They are written in plain English. And if the Greek word for silence doesn't mean to shut one's mouth, then they better change it because that's exactly what it means.
Are you serious? Please tell me you aren't suggesting that the original language of composition has no bearing on the meaning of the text? Have you ever studied language at all? Or translation? Have you ever learned another language? If so it isn't likely you would make an ignorant statement like the one above. English didn't exist when the NT books were written. When it did emerge it took many hundreds of years to develop into the language we use today. You wouldn't be able to recognise The English of 1000 years ago.

If you consider it beneath you to learn from a woman that's your choice but please let some of the men who understand these things teach you something.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
There is not a single word in any of those verses regarding women preaching inside the church. Not a single word. Accusing my theology of being "misogynist" is simply bearing false witness. When I share the verses of 1 Corinthians 14:34-14:35 it is not my words that are being put forth. It is the word of God.
To preach means to proclaim the gospel, and to witness of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. So women did "preach" in the church because they prophesied in it. Whether they gave sermons like what today's preaching is, I have no idea.
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
3,778
943
113
62
It's extremely doubtful that Paul wrote those two verses. How very strange to be so obsessed with two verses that a lot of evidence suggests are an interpolation. Prudence would dictate not being so dogmatic about something so uncertain.
For someone who dont agree with the truth, it may be doubtful. But then you can question all scripture. Even the JW ueding the bible for their false doctrine.
This 2 verses fitting to that what Paul also said in 1. Tim 2.
And thats why people claim him as an misogynist.
Go ahead with this, but you cant convince me that your view is true. How somebody can be true, if he is doubting the word of God?
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
.
The earliest church fathers gave no witness of knowing about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. As far as I know Tertullian was the first to express those ideas.

From > 1 Corinthians 14.34-35

Luther’s exclusion of women has it’s origin in a tradition begun by Tertullian (145-220). Karen Jo Torjesen describes Tertullian’s vision of the church as an essentially Roman institution.

Tertullian’s description of the Christian community dramatically marks the transition of the model of the church from the household or private association to the body politic. With him the church became a legal body (corpus or societas, the term the Romans used for the body politic) unified by a common law (lex fidei, “the law of faith”) and a common discipline (disciplina, Christian morality). For Tertullian the church, like Roman society, united a diversity of ethic groups into one body under the rule of one law… Tertullian conceived the society of the church as analogous to Roman society, divided into distinct classes or ranks, which were distinguished from one another in terms of honor and authority.[4]

Only those who were full members of the political body could possess ius docendi (the legal right to teach) and ius baptizandi (legal right to baptize). Women could not be full members and therefore they were excluded from the clergy. But Tertullian excluded women also from the laity, for although the laity could perform the legal functions in the absence of the clergy, women could not.

“It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office.”[5]
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
.
The earliest church fathers gave no witness of knowing about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. As far as I know Tertullian was the first to express those ideas.

From > 1 Corinthians 14.34-35
IMO Tertullian had some nutty, ungodly ideas. Here from the above article he lauds a Roman misogynist.

Tertullian, when defending the faith, asked the Romans, “Which of these gods of yours is more remarkable for gravity and wisdom than Cato.”And, Lactantius called Cato “the Chief of Roman wisdom.”[36]

Cato’s belief that women would not be content with equality makes him a likely source of an interpolation [i.e., the addition of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35] which mandates the subjection of women.

Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is not good giving her the reins and expecting her not to kick over the traces. No, you have got to keep the reins firmly in your own hands… Suppose you allow them to acquire or to restore one right after another, and in the end to achieve complete equality with men, do you think that you will find them bearable? Nonsense. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters…[37]​
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,388
5,729
113
You answer questions with more questions of your own. That is not how a conversation is designed to go. You should answer questions first and then proceed to ask more questions of your own. Otherwise you are giving weight only to your questions and no weight to the questions of others.
Does your arrogance know no bounds? You are a dictator at heart. You demand complete control, your way in everything. You even demand the right to dictate your own ground rules for a conversation. Then you have the bare-faced cheek to lecture others about submission!
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
For someone who dont agree with the truth, it may be doubtful. But then you can question all scripture. Even the JW ueding the bible for their false doctrine.
This 2 verses fitting to that what Paul also said in 1. Tim 2.
And thats why people claim him as an misogynist.
Go ahead with this, but you cant convince me that your view is true. How somebody can be true, if he is doubting the word of God?
Are John 7:53–8:11 the word of GOD. Why, or why not?
 

BB1956

Junior Member
Oct 28, 2017
2
0
1
I find it interesting that only men were chosen to be apostles.Why is that? I believe that women can teach but not hold positions of authority in the church.
 

lightbearer

Senior Member
Jun 17, 2017
2,375
504
113
58
HBG. Pa. USA
However it's gender is masculine. So Being it governs the rest of the clause. So when we come to ἐπιγινωσκέτω G1921 which is 3rd person singular. Proper grammar would dictate it be translated "Let Him Recognize" Not "themselves" as found in the NIV. This fact also limits the translation ἀδελφοί to brothers.
While ἐπιγινωσκέτω is certainly third person singular, it is also a verb. No pronoun is used! So therefore, it must be both. The fact is, Paul has good Greek. If he wanted it to say “man” or “he” he would have written it this way.
He did. The masculine gender of subject predicate nominative τις governs it's corresponding verbs. ἐπιγινωσκέτω is τις corresponding verb in the clause.

1Cor 14:37 ​ει τις δοκει προφητης ειναι η πνευματικος επιγινωσκετω α γραφω υμιν οτι κυριου εισιν εντολαι

We have the same usage in the next text. αγνοειτω is 3rd person singular also.

1Cor 14:38 ​ει δε τις αγνοει αγνοειτω

3rd person singular= he/she/it.

For a translator to render the word in question gender neutral; τις would have to be neuter not masculine or feminine. This rule of thumb is why the following translators translated επιγινωσκετω and αγνοειτω with masculine pronouns.



First J.P. Green's work:
If anyone thinks to be a prophet, or a spiritual one, let him recognize the things I write to you, that they are a command of the Lord. But if any be ignorant, let him be ignorant. So then, brothers, seek eagerly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in languages.
(1Co 14:37-39 LITV-TSP)

Charles Thompson:
If any one be, in reality, a prophet, or a spiritual man, let him acknowledge that what I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any one doth not know this, let him continue ignorant. So then, brethren, be ambitious of prophesying, and prohibit not the speaking with tongues.
(1Co 14:37-39 CT OC+NC)

Bullinger:
If any one think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any one be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, brethren, desire to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
(1Co 14:37-39 EWB-CB)

Julia Smith:
If any think to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him observe what I write to you, that they are the commands of the Lord. And if any is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Therefore, brethren, be zealous to prophesy, and hinder not to speak in tongues.
(1Co 14:37-39 Julia)


If any one thinks a prophet to be or spiritual, let him acknowledge the things I write you, because of Lord they are commandments; if but any one is ignorant, let him be ignorant. So that, brethren, be you zealous that to prophesy, and that to speak with tongues not hinder you;
(1Co 14:37-39 Diaglott-NT)


Concordant Literal Version:
If anyone is presuming to be a prophet or spiritual, let him be recognizing that what I am writing to you is a precept of the Lord." Now if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant!" So that, my brethren, be zealous to be prophesying, and the speaking in languages do not forbid."
(1Co 14:37-39 CLV)


Grammar Use Version:
If anyone is thinking to be a prophet or spiritual, let him keep recognizing the things which I am writing to you, »they are commands of the LORD; but if any is being ignorant, let him keep being ignorant. So that, brethren, keep being emulous to be prophesying, and stop forbidding to be speaking with tongues.
(1Cor 14:37-39 GUV)

Wallace held true to the grammar in verses 37 through 38

37) If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord's command. 38) If someone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 39) So then, brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid anyone from speaking in tongues.
(1Co 14:37-39 NET)

But then ignored the Conjunction aspect of ὥστε (hōste) in verse 39. This word is used to connect clauses or sentences. Typically translated, so-that, so-then, that or along those lines. Since it is at the beginning of the next clause it therefore grammatically connects what follows it to what was before.

So with that being understood
ἀδελφοί (brothers) should be translated in the masculine sense because it is grammatically governed to the preceding predicate nominative's gender which is masculine.
 
Last edited:

lightbearer

Senior Member
Jun 17, 2017
2,375
504
113
58
HBG. Pa. USA
Does your arrogance know no bounds? You are a dictator at heart. You demand complete control, your way in everything. You even demand the right to dictate your own ground rules for a conversation. Then you have the bare-faced cheek to lecture others about submission!
Did you ever notice how much time people spend on here talking about other people and not much time sharing GOD's word or their views on it?
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,388
5,729
113
Did you ever notice how much time people spend on here talking about other people and not much time sharing GOD's word or their views on it?
I have noticed a core group of bully-boys attempting to close ranks and shut down any but their own rigid interpretation of God's word.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
Its in the bible, so it is Gods word!
So if it's in the bible now, but wasn't in most of the early Greek manuscripts, nor in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, then it's the word of GOD. That's not the way I look at it.

Which of these is the word of GOD? Why?

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Romans 8:1

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1
 

preacher4truth

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,719
113
I have noticed a core group of bully-boys attempting to close ranks and shut down any but their own rigid interpretation of God's word.
OK, then let's be consistent with your above argument: The exact same can and should be said about you, your polemic toward others who differ, and your views.

For the record, the passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is complemented with that of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Therefore it is not an isolated teaching with no further examples elsewhere that are Pauline. Also, I don't buy the "two dots" theory that it must means this wasn't authentic which is genuinely coupled with the argument that Paul didn't teach this elsewhere.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,186
3,703
113
So if it's in the bible now, but wasn't in most of the early Greek manuscripts, nor in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, then it's the word of GOD. That's not the way I look at it.

Which of these is the word of GOD? Why?
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Romans 8:1

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1
Don't trust anything coming from the Alexandrian and Vatican manuscripts.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,388
5,729
113
OK, then let's be consistent with your above argument: The exact same can and should be said about you, your polemic toward others who differ, and your views.

For the record, the passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is complemented with that of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Therefore it is not an isolated teaching with no further examples elsewhere that are Pauline. Also, I don't buy the "two dots" theory that it must means this wasn't authentic which is genuinely coupled with the argument that Paul didn't teach this elsewhere.
To be honest I'm fed up with it. God revealed himself to me without ranking me in a 2nd class role. Only [some] men have tried to stuff me into a box. You patriarchs can have your stifling churches, I won't be attending them. Αντιο σας
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Used as tools by whom ? They were used as tools and inspired by GOD HIMSELF to speak. That is why their words are truth and your attempts at disputing those words have and always will be a complete and total failure. For one to believe in God, then they must believe the words of those GOD inspired to speak. It was GOD speaking through them.
Yes their words were truth. Because you have a different opinon of what they mean spiritually, it only shows there are heresies amoung us.It does not make your private interpretation, the law, by which others seek the approval of.
 

preacher4truth

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,719
113
To be honest I'm fed up with it. God revealed himself to me without ranking me in a 2nd class role.
When God revealed himself to me I realized I was in less than a 2nd class role. Still am, 1 Timothy 1:15.

I take it some people get told how great and wonderful they are while they're lost, hostile toward God and ungodly. How dare God tell us where we rank spiritually or even rank at all. Self-importance is paramount and in order. We have our rights, you know. Some were way up there when God found them. :rolleyes:

Tearing some Scriptures out right about now...Ephesians 2:3; Romans 8:8; Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Romans 3:11-18; Colossians 1:21, Jeremiah 17:9...

Only [some] men have tried to stuff me into a box.
Scripture stuffs us all into a box. We're all in the same box. We all have differing roles given by God's decree and even our gender plays into his plan. Human nature and the flesh do not like this, demand rights, and rebel. Romans 9:20.

You patriarchs can have your stifling churches, I won't be attending them. Αντιο σας
...and then just add in some disdain, a straw man argument, then of course some emotionalism.

Nothing biblical, mind you, just derogation of others, something you're at the same time decrying being done to you while doing it yourself.

The only person holding a mysoginist view here is loyald..., and you continue to engage him for whatever reason. Sure, call me the same, I fully expect it for embracing the two aforementioned passages as God's Word.
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
3,778
943
113
62
And you feel pleased with yourself if you can take some verses and use them as a weapon of intimidation.
Sorry, I did not recognize, that I am Intimidate Somebody with the Word of God.