Why did Paul say that women are not allowed to speak in the churches? There were prophets in the church, right? And some of them were women, as the daughters of Philip. Is Paul contradicting? And if it is true that women can not exercise authority charges, then why God used a woman (Deborah) to judge Israel?
My understanding is that Paul was not forbidding women to SPEAK in the assembly of saints. He was forbidding them to TALK in the assembly—in other words to chat with others or to speak out and interrupt the proceedings. That’s why Paul said that if they had any question, let them ask their husband at home—instead of interrupting someon who was speaking by shouting out their question.
Here is the reply I posted before the system went down and erased so many of our posts:
Came across this very interesting link on another forum about 1Tim.2:12
equalityinchrist.wordpress.com/
The guy does a great job of undoing traditional view on this verse.
We don’t know that, Cindy. 12 translations render the name as “Junia” ( a woman’s name) in Romans 16:7, and 7 other translations render it as “Junias” (a man’s name). Why the confusion? Because in the accusative case, both names are identical in Greek, namely “ιουνιαν”.
Very enlightening. Thanks for sharing.
I’ve never thought of it, tying those two things together so succinctly, but it makes sense based on the literary context. If women were constantly interupting speakers in larger gatherings of the church because of 1) being less educated and 2) having a new-found freedom and equality in Christ, such could significantly disrupt the speaker and the meeting.
Also, we should remember that in 1 Corinthians Paul is dealing with issues in a very disfunctional and divisive fellowship of believers. They were arguing over who they should follow, pride in speaking negatively of the apostles, dealing with some significant sexual immorality, sueing one another, some were apparently calling for sexual abstinance even within marriage (possibly even calling for divorce if one party did not want to remain abstinant), constant arguments over doctrine and life-styles, continued participation in idolotry, communal meals turned into opportunities to down others, spiritual manifestations gone wild, chaotic worship services with everyone vying for attention (this is where the admonition for women to not talk but to ask questions at home is), even arguments over whether the ressurection had already taken place!
Understanding the above context helps us understand that this letter is not a treatise on any given doctrinal issue, but is a letter dealing with a whole list of bad attitudes and practices in that fellowship. This will help us to not take short passages or phrases out of context and interpret them to say more than what Paul intended, as has been done traditionally with the passage in discussion.
Anyhow, thanks bro. for your note above. As you can see it resonated with me as I thought of the overall feel of the letter.
blessings,
Sherman
Apparently there isn’t much dispute these days over whether Junia was female. The majority of scholars agree that she is a she. Whether or not she and Andronicus were in fact apostles is the part that’s disputed according to this article: Here’s a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia
Whether there’s much dispute or not, the fact remains that one cannot determine from the Greek alone whether the name is the masculine “Junias” or the feminine “Junia.” If one could, there would not be a significant number of translations on each “side” of the issue.
Were there women leaders in the early church?
The apostles of the early church were definitely not limited to The Twelve.
Luke called both Paul and Barnabus apostles in Acts 14:14
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude…
Paul also called Epaphroditus the apostle of the Philippian church. I don’t know why so many translators render the word “messenger”. Perhaps they are slavishly following the King James Version.
I deemed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow-worker, and fellow-soldier, but your apostle and minister to my need.
Paul also called James, the Lord’s brother an apostle. James was not one of the twelve. He is not to be confused with James the son of Zebedee, nor James the son of Alphaeus.
But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. Galatians 1:19
Then we have this interesting greeting in Romans 16:7
Greet Andronicus and Jun…, who are notable in the apostles, and who have been in Christ before me.
Commentators are not in agreement as to whether this means that these two were notable by the apostles, or whether they themselves were apostles and were notable among them.
Gill, Barnes, Poole, and Robertson subscribe to the former, while Calvin, Luther, and Alford, the latter.
The Greek word for “in” (“en”) does sometimes seem to mean “by”. Most translators translate it as “among”, but even that does not seem to remove the ambiguity. Personally, I favour the latter view, (yes, I agree with Calvin in this case) that Paul is saying that these two were themselves apostles, and were apostles of note.
A further difficulty with the verse is the second name. The name is “Junia” (feminine) according to the AV, ESV, JB2000, KJ21, NKJV, and R Webster. However, the name is “Junias” (masculine) according to the ASV, Darby, Douay, Message, NASB, NIV, Philips, Rotherham, RSV, NRSV, and YLT.
Does the Greek help us here? If only Paul had placed an article before the name, it would have. But without the article, the accusative (objective) case has an identical ending for masculine words ending in “as” and feminine words ending in “a”. That ending is “ian”.
In the book of Matthew, there are five masculine names in the accusative case ending in “ian”. They are Uzziah [1,8], Hezekiah [1:9], Josiah [1,10], Jechoniah [1:10], and Elijah [16:14]. There is one feminine name in the accusative case ending in “ian” Mary [1:20]. However there are 29 other feminine words (non-names of persons) in the accusative case, ending in “ian”. The word “Messiah” is masculine, and is used in the accusative case, ending in “ian” in John 1:41.
Some who claim the word “Junian” in Rom 16:7 is the accusative form of “Junia” say that this is evidence that there was a female apostle. But since “Junias” would also have the same accusative form, it is not known for certain whether this person was a man or a woman.
As I see it, it seems unlikely that this person was a woman in view of other statements made by Paul, such as that a woman was to be silent in church, and if she had a question to ask her husband at home.
Some claim that since Paul mentions a female deacon, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1, that this is evidence that there were female leaders in the primitive church. However, the function of a “deacon”, today, differs markedly from the deacons in the first century. At that time, they were “servers” or “distributors” (the very meaning of the Greek word “diakonos”. They served tables (as the original seven appointed deacons), or they ministered to the needs of the needy, by distributing to them what was necessary. They were not Christian leaders.
I believe that Junia was an apostle and a female. And I’m glad to learn from and with women. If I was the enemy of the church, I’d love to be able to convince 60%+ of the church’s leaders to not use their leadership gifts, and convincing women to not be leaders in the church would accomplish this.
Amen, Sherman. 
I believe Paul used “women” (or the “woman”, such as when he refers to “Eve” as the one who was deceived) the same way he used “babes” and “children” - to represent the spiritually immature. And this is not something that originated with Paul, we see it in the OT as well. Isa 3 speaks of babes, children and women in this way. This is why the church is likened to “a woman”, particularly a woman “with child”, one who must be “delivered of the child” so that “a man” can be brought into the world.
I do not believe that Paul was addressing those in the church after the flesh when he said; “I suffer not a woman (singular) to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man (also singular), but to be in silence”. I believe that he was addressing them on a spiritual lever which is why his explanation or reason is given in relation to “Adam” (who is a figure of Christ) and “Eve” (who is a figure of the church), why it ends with: “Notwithstanding SHE shall be saved in childbearing, if THEY continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
This, to me, is reminiscent of what Jesus told his disciples (all male) about being “as a woman” whose hour is come “to be delivered of the child”. This is “salvation”; this is “Christ in you, the hope of glory”; this is the bringing forth of “a man”, even “the son of God”, into the world. This applies to all men, male for female.
Jeremiah speaks of this.
Paul even used himself (a male) as an example of “a man” who “travailed in birth” (who travailed in birth “again” with them, who he called “my little children”, as he waited for Christ to be formed “in them”.
This, to me, is a perfect example of how “the letter” can “kill” when we fail to rightly divide the word of truth by comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
My take on this is that Paul is asking the women not to do things that are annoying or distracting. If the word “speak” meant just that, and nothing else, then the woman who was on facebook while smoking a cigarette all through the sermon would be in the clear as the bible forbids neither. The one who said quietly, “Are you all right?” to someone who has collapsed in a heap would be in dead trouble.
If taking something to its logical conclusion results in an absurdity, then that something has to be up the junction without a ticket.
I think Paul is simply going over the top for emphasis, something he does in other places. “If you can’t stop your endless hok a chainik then shut up already, goysha kopf!” is a reasonable rendering in modern Yiddish.
I don’t think it’s really about chattering in “church,” though I’ve heard that. It never quite did it for me. The 1 Cor passage, I believe, consists of Paul quoting the letter he received from one faction of the Corinthian church and saying, “Oh, and I suppose the law of God came only to you! Huh!” Otherwise, he would probably have had to talk to the men more than the women. When we get together it’s the men who go off on rabbit trails, not the ladies. We tend to imagine they “did church” the way we do. There’s a description in chapter 14 of the way their gatherings actually looked. Earlier in the very same letter Paul tells the ladies to keep their heads covered while prophesying. He says everyone can offer their contribution to the gathering, but that they must do it in an orderly and peaceful fashion. And when he says “keep silence” it’s the same word he uses to tell the prophets to be quiet and allow themselves to be interrupted, and then, when the second person has spoken, to return to what they had been saying.
But you’re combining two passages, and also talking about the one in Timothy (can’t remember which letter). I believe Paul was talking about a particular woman (“a woman” should be quiet – as contrasted with “women” commanded to dress modestly) who was attempting to teach heresies not out of malignity but from her ignorance. He’s uncommonly kind to her, advising her to learn in quietness, and refraining from mentioning her name. Women in that city at that time were not permitted to learn, so this was revolutionary. Later in the same letter Paul mentions two men and he’s extremely harsh with them. He accuses them by name. He excuses the woman to some degree because he knows she can’t help being ignorant – but points out that she should not remain ignorant, and that she should NOT teach until she has learned.