T here is a tradition among Christians of quoting Paul to Timothy and Paul to the Corinthians to justify a policy of Cover your head and shut your mouth for women in the Church. Is this position biblically accurate? 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 [KJV] 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 and to Timothy , 1 Timothy 2:11-12 [KJV] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence . If it is then we have a bit of a problem because the same Paul says in Galatians 3:28-29 [KJV] 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.[29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise . So then which is it? Is Paul prone to saying what is convenient for the Particular occasion or have we missed something?

Some things are ridiculous and we should know it, but somehow when somebody in authority says it then it suddenly becomes doctrine. Women cannot pray with their heads uncovered therefore Eve never prayed until she learned to make hats, and even though God knew that she needed hat-help He let her approach Him all that time in the garden mute and never even made her a bonnet of sheep skin when she eventually had to leave the garden. It's amazing!

What is a Church?

Perhaps we should begin by clarifying what God's Church is and what in Church is. From what I said above Adam and Eve meeting God in the garden could not have been the Church of course. Or maybe Eve, who was not afraid to talk to the serpent, was so scared of God that she never uttered a word in His presence? So the first time that God heard Eve speak was in Genesis 3:13. I really don't think so. And God had this opinion of women then why would He speak to the inferior subjugated woman when the husband was right there? To skip to the end and relieve the suspense I propose that Matthew gave the answer to what in Church is.

What God's Church is takes a bit longer to explain.

Church in the New Testament

The first time that we see the word Church in the English Bible is in Matthew 16 where Christ explains that He will build His Church on Himself, a tremendous immovable object.

In Matthew 18 Christ went on to demonstrate that it is a body of people by showing that they can provide a verdict on a member (Matthew 18:17). In Acts 2:47 It was added to, In Acts 5:11 we see that it was afraid. We find Churches at Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), Cenchrea (Romans 16:1), at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2) and more. It was in the house of Priscilla and Aquila at Rome Romans 16:3, the house of Nymphas in Laodicea (Collossians 4:15) and elsewhere. It greets people (Romans 16:23) and is itself greeted (Romans 16:5). It has been persecuted (1 Corinthians 15:9) and edified (1 Corinthians 14:4). Christ gave himself for it (Ephesians 5:25) and is where He lives (1 Timothy 3:15). It is defined in 1 Corinthians.

The Church did not begin in the New Testament but in the Old.

The Church in the wilderness

The Bible clearly shows us that there was a Church in the Old Testament. The First Church that we know of is the entire nation of Israel.

The definitions that are given in this document are taken from Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries unless otherwise indicated. The meaning of the word church itself in Greek tells us part of the story

G1577 ekklesia (ek-klay-see'-ah) n.

1. (properly) a "calling out"

2. (concretely) a called out assembly of citizens

3. (specifically, of Christ) the community of the Redeemed of Christ whether being on earth or in heaven or both

{used only of people, not a location, structure, etc. Of Christ, used only of the Redeemed, not of the unredeemed in their midst}

The emphasis above is mine. Then we can see from the extract what made them God's Church: they were given the oracles of God. The Church is not the Temple. That may seem obvious but in many arguments the structure in the Church is compared to the structure in the Temple and what was required in the Temple is seen as a requirement for the Church. For example because the High Priest represented Christ and was always male, then it is assumed that since leaders in the New Testament Church are a type of Christ too then they must all be male. That is not the case. God's Church is not the people assembled in a room or the building itself it is all of the people of God but when a group of two or more are together they represent the whole. If you want to limit it to a specific group then you must qualify the word with something like at Ephesus.

Leadership in the Old Testament ekklesia was given to judges by God. He hand picked who was best for the job and was not at all pleased when the people clamoured for a king (1 Samuel 8) under Samuel, who was the last judge.

The Church is the People of God

What Church means has become a bit more expanded in the New Testament but the fundamental meaning is the same, i.e. separated people. In the Old Testament it was always the entire nation of Israel. In the New Testament the Church is often identified by adding the place where the disciples live. We have for example the Church at Corinth. I have not found a citing where the church cannot be interpreted as the people although some choose to interpret it as the building for their own purposes. One of these situations is when they want to support women not speaking in Church. If we allow the meaning of a building to be accepted then we give them some perspective from which to justify their argument but, as was quoted when introducing the paper, that is never the intended meaning of the word.

Old Testament Prophetesses

Prophets and prophetesses have been a constant feature of the Church whether Old Testament or New. What is a prophetess? Let us backtrack a bit. Miriam is most infamous for complaining about Moses' black wife. That story is found in Numbers 12 and we also find there a description of what a prophet is.

Prophets/prophetesses were therefore the ones whom God spoke to in visions and dreams. So then how did everybody else know if they did not teach them what the encounter meant, because God would have only revealed the meaning to a prophet alone?

A prophetess is simply a female prophet. God speaks to the prophet and the prophet speaks on behalf of God.

Seer and prophet mean the same and is the person that people went to when they wanted to ask God anything.

It was the person whom God used to inform His people of His intentions (Amos 3:7) and in terms of gifts is only preceded by apostles.

So we are not talking about a down-the-line role. In any group of Christians the word and credibility of a female prophet would be far superior than the average man, but for practical purposes it would not generally have been prudent to send a woman as an apostle especially to perform the duties of the twelve.

Miriam

Now that incident in Numbers 12 is used by some to indicate that Miriam had no significance with God and was just an also-ran but that is not what God says. It is the exact opposite. God had to do something about Miriam because she spoke for Him and so her statement would be seen as His.

Miriam was used to guide Israel, it is just that Moses was such a hard act to follow. All three of them have prominent roles. Wikipedia says at captioned Rabbinical_commentary one the subject of Hur the companion of Moses:

According to Rabbinic tradition, Hur was the son of Miriam, thus Moses and Aaron's nephew. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 69b & Sotah 11b) states that Caleb, a descendant from Judah, married Miriam and fathered Hur. This is based on the Targum to I Chron. 2:19: "...and Caleb took for himself Ephrath and she bore him Hur". Ephrath was another name for Miriam. Rashi's Bible commentary justifies this position on the two other locations in Exodus where Hur is mentioned: 17:10 & 24:14. However, Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews states that Hur was the husband of Moses' sister Miriam.[10] editors of WikipediaHur (Bible)Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hur_(Bible)00:01, 31 October 2025

Miriam was a very significant woman.

Did she have to wait on Moses' instructions? The story of Miriam is important because of how closely God was relating to the Church at that time. He was just starting up and did not allow His values to be corrupted. He dealt harshly with infractions.

Now God did not condemn Miriam for speaking in the Church but for speaking against Moses. There is no law or instruction given to nip this in the bud so that women should not speak, even though this incident happened at the beginning of the Church with God up front and centre.

Deborah

Now let us look at the story of Deborah to see if it says what is popularly repeated i.e. that the only reason why Deborah was a judge and prophet is because men would not do the job. Now to me that is like saying that the only reason why a woman won the race is that the men were slower. It seems to stick in people's throat to say that she was the best, full stop. God chose by ability not gender.

Deborah was a judge, in fact the fourth judge in Israel (Judges 4:1-5:31). Now let me say a bit about judges; God is king and he gave earthly responsibility to represent His rule over to judges.

H8199 shaphat (shaw-fat') v.

1. to judge, i.e. pronounce sentence (for or against)

2. (by implication) to vindicate or punish

3. (by extenssion) to govern

(passively, literally or figuratively) to litigate

The primary responsibility of judges was to deliver Israel.

This included a military role although Deborah, in order to honour God, would want victory in battle to be ascribed to a man. Notice the difference between responsible for delivering and guiding the nation and responsible for leading the army. Deborah always had the God given responsibility to lead and deliver the nation or Church but a man was responsible for the army. Teaching and fighting is not the same thing.

The story of Deborah is found in Judges 4-5. Deborah was already an established judge when she summoned Barak, an Israelite General, to go to war with 10,000 men against Sisera. Israel would have been oppressed for twenty years by Jabin king of Canaan and Sisera his general. Sisera had 900 chariots of iron, and Israel had nothing to compare, so from a military standpoint it was suicide. Barak put his faith in her and not in God. He was not converted and apparently had no relationship with God. The story here is one of faith and Deborah wanted it known that she was not responsible for victory. Deborah prophesies that Israel will be victorious, however the glory will not go to Barak but to a woman instead because of his lack of faith in God and that is just what happened. Deborah was a competent and faithful emissary from God. Deborah brought the nation of Israel forty years of peace as deliverer of the nation. Barak bore responsibility for the army subject to her. So God, who says that there is nothing to hard for Him, could not find a man so He broke His own law. Never in a billion years! Can't happen!

Huldah

Some people claim that God only uses prophetesses when the men are jokes and a woman is the only man in Judah . I beg to differ. That argument is often supported by the story of Deborah but what about Huldah?

Huldah's story is recorded in 2 Kings 22:14-20 and 2 Chronicles 34:22-28. She was contemporary with the prophet Jeremiah and King Josiah of Judah. When the Book of the Law was found, King Josiah sent his high priest and other officials to Huldah for an authoritative word from God, not to Jeremiah or Zephaniah, who were both prophets at the time. God did not need two or three prophets and nobody can argue against the faith of Jeremiah.

2 Kings 22 gives more details about the book. Josiah who became king at eight was attempting to bring Judah back to God and in so doing he started repairing the temple. In the process Hilkiah the high priest discovers the Book of the Law. Because Josiah was preceded by such evil kings Judah had lost knowledge of the law and needed someone to teach them! Huldah verifies the book and gives them the prediction that God gave to her: Judgement on Judah is certain but it will not occur during the lifetime of Josiah because of his humility.

We know of course that Josiah died violently so some argue that Huldah was a false prophetess. Josiah dies because he deliberately tempted God by putting himself in harms way despite God had warned him not to. The story is found in 2 Chronicles 35:20-27 but judgement did come to Judah after he died even though Josiah did not die peacefully. Huldah in particular shows that one of the roles of the prophet/prophetess was to instruct kings in the Church.

Noadiah

Noadiah was a genuine prophetess, at least that is was Nehemiah says.

Did God give Noadiah the gift of prophecy because she was the only man in Judah ? From the account it seems like she was a female Balaam.

Isaiah's wife

Was Isaiah's wife given the gift of prophecy because she was the only man in Judah ? The major prophet Isaiah considered his wife to be a prophetess.

That brings us to the end of the Old Testament prophetesses. There is no general statement of superiority of men over women given in the Old Testament Church. People are given opportunities and they try their best to fulfil them. In any case the argument that is presented against women is not that they should defer to men but that they cannot participate in public discussion and cannot teach men . Who made that law? It certainly is not from God since He is the one who made the women into prophetesses and in one case a judge. He is the one who started the Church with Miriam as one of the three main leaders. If it is against His law then why did He do it? Is it the case where the God who said that there is nothing too hard for Him, could not keep His own law?

New Testament Prophetess

Anna

Our first example is Anna.

Who told Anna to shut up? Who directed and guided Anna? How was she able to tell everyone the news by being silent in the ekklesia ?

The Daughters of Phillip

Now how about the four daughters of Philip. This, for one thing, shows that it is not a fluke.

Now we are expected to believe that God gave the gift of prophesy to four women but they were to keep their mouths shut when men were present and could not speak publicly. They were apparently born and began to prophesy under the Old Covenant where the ekklesia was Israel but continued into the New unchanged. This scripture demonstrates that they continued to function as prophetsses in the Christian community because that is the New Testament 'ekklesia'.

Prophesying in the New Testament

It might be useful to consider prophesying in the New Testament as a means of clarifying some firmly held myths. The word prophesy here is defined as G4395; Hebrew propheteuo : to foretell events, divine, speak under inspiration, exercise the prophetic office.

Now prophesying by women and men in the New Testament did not happen by accident. When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost it was recognized as a fulfilment of Joel's prophecy. In the case of Philip's daughters, that is seen as a direct fulfilment of what God says, demonstrating that He keeps His word. God features women prominently in the development of the Church but somehow men have convinced themselves that they are the only ones that He cares about. Certain things must happen before the Day of the Lord but not necessarily immediately before only.

So young women are prophesied to be involved in the wonders of the New Testament under God so if yours cannot then where does that put you? An important part of that is prophesying and we have to let them do God's work. Let us look at what God reveals that prophesying means.

This is a familiar scripture but let us focus on what Paul says in verse 3 about what prophesying is supposed to do. This tells us what anybody that prophesies is supposed to do. How can they do it by not speaking to men? We will get back to this scripture. Now some more on the same subject in the same Chapter.

Is this saying that women are excluded from consideration? It cannot because then in would negate Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:17-18 quoted above. The use of the male gender here is universal and inclusive of women. God has just told us that it was His intention for women to prophesy so they cannot be excluded. By the way notice how Paul expected the process of prophesying (which I claim to be in the category of preaching) was to be done. From verse 29 we see that it was more like a panel discussion with a moderator. Now getting back to the main point let us consider in context what one woman did as recorded by Luke.

How did she do what she did in verse 38 without talking to men? When she spoke of him what was she saying? How many men are recorded as doing the same thing?

Now one group of prophets that we have considered is the female group of Philip's daughters, so it is prudent to examine what someone who knew them up close and personal in the New Testament has to say.

Prophets taught the preachers because the preachers depended on them to know what to preach. Peter never said that it had changed and he knew prophets intimately. Were women prophets only supposed to teach women preachers? Don't you think that Philip would have highlighted his daughters as exceptions if they could not do this? Nobody in scripture has ever made a distinction between a male an a female prophet. Is Malachi making a distinction? When people who fear God get together must the women shut up?

Women speaking out

Make up your mind. Can they speak up or not? God created a situation in Israel where a woman had to speak for the whole nation. The incident has even become the subject of a national Holy Day.

Esther

Purim is a Jewish Holy Day that commemorates the deliverance of the Jewish people in the ancient Persian Empire. The story is the subject of the book of Esther, in other words God respected this act so much that He recorded it as part of His holy word. Haman, royal vizier to King Ahasuerus planned to kill all the Jews in the Persian empire. Mordecai overheard the plot and countered with strategy which depended solely on Esther. Esther was his cousin and adopted daughter and queen of Queen of Persia. There is no indication that Mordecai had the power to direct her in any way, there is no appeal to scripture which shows that it was her obligation to follow his instructions. Mordecai appealed to her because he could not demand it even if the whole of the nation depended on it. In remembrance a two-day Holy Day was proclaimed.

The two days have since been reduced to one. Christ never offered any disapproving remarks against the book or the celebration. The story of Esther shows what Paul was talking about to the Corinthians. Women should be subject to their husbands but that does not mean to be mute or doltish. The original queen had lost her position because she chose not to be subject and Esther delivered Israel because she was in subjection to her husband and did not disrespect his protocols even though she was queen. There is no place in the Bible that supports the alternate theory that women should be subject to all men. Women have to sometimes speak out in the face of great peril and they need to practise doing so in humility just like men.

Chloe

Did Paul speak with women?

Now you could argue that it does not say that Chloe spoke but why did Paul identify it as the house of Chloe rather than her husband or son if there was one? It appears that there was a discussion with the whole household which included Chloe.

The New Testament Church

From our examination of prophetesses it should be clear that in the New Testament God never changed The Law to exclude women from holding public positions of influence that would cause them to direct and teach men.

Do men always precede women?

There is another carefully guarded right that men of religion claim to have. It is this belief that men must always precede women. I do not know where they got it from but for sure God never expressed it as His will for mankind. It is true that there are social developments which support women being ahead of men. In ancient Israel it had a lot to do with property rights. In chivalry it stems from the concept of the weaker sex but the rest just seems to be abuse and exploitation. Ancient Israel were required to remain in their clan or tribe to preserve the territory that was assigned to them. The title was passed on by the male except when there were no males available. Chivalry is a recognition that females are biologically weaker and must be protected.

Priscilla

An argument that is always presented when making the case against women is that men in the Bible always precede women. God probably anticipated that and made a point with Priscilla. Wikipedia says of Priscilla and Aquila at captioned New Testament references :

They are mentioned six times in four different books and by two different human penman (Paul and Luke)[5] in the New Testament. They are always named as a couple and never individually. Of those six references, Aquila's name is mentioned first only twice: and one of the times on account of it being Paul's first encounter with them, probably through Aquila first.

editors of Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPriscilla and AquilaWikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_and_Aquila03:44, 19 November 2025

The references to them are as follows:

Men do not always precede women and God made a point that it certainly was not so in the New Testament.

Phoebe

Phoebe was almost certainly host to the Church at Cenchrea and was the person to whom Paul entrusted the letter to the Church at Rome.

The word used for servant here is the same word used elsewhere for deacon in 1 Timothy 3 and minister in most other places. Paul trusted her. Why did he not find a man to send? Were all of the male Christians fools? Now look also at the instructions that he gave to the Church at Rome: assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you ; so who was the boss and who the assistant?

As a matter of fact, in this first chapter of Romans we see no indication that Paul is singling out men to be first but he is identifying those who were prominent in the work whether male of female and the order has nothing to do with gender.

Christ and Women

Have you ever known Christ to tell a woman to be quiet? You can't get a bigger man in the Church than He and there was never a hint that He was unwilling to listen to women or expected them to be quiet in His presence. Who's presence are you concerned about in the church? Who are you seeking to honour? When looking at Christ we must bear the following scriptures in mind.

Christ never said anything wrong or did anything wrong! He is the example. We need only follow others as they follow Christ.

The woman of Samaria

If God does not want women talking to men then He certainly set a poor example. In John 4 there is a lengthy discourse initiated by Christ. Jesus deliberately extended the conversation to far more than the essentials and went into personal details. I cannot imagine a scenario where Christ could not get around talking to a specific person if He wanted to. We are therefore left with the undeniable conclusion that Christ wanted to talk to women and saw it as neither a sin nor an inconvenience. He was neither cursory or superficial. He encouraged her to ask questions and answered them completely. He was not her husband so the question of women discussing with men is answered as an affirmative.

The woman of Canaan

Just to be sure that this could not be considered as an isolated case we also have the woman of Canaan.

This woman was not even a Samaritan and had not the slightest connection to Israel but Christ had no problem entering into a discussion with her and helping her. All that he cared about was her faith which He tested first.

Mary and Martha

Christ also talked extensively with many Jewish women like Mary and Martha, Lazarus's sisters and Mary of Magdala. We want to specifically focus on Mary and Martha because we want to examine what He was doing at their house.

Jesus was teaching. It was not the Sabbath but Jesus was teaching. Martha approached Him while he was teaching . He did not say that it was inappropriate but that she had her priorities wrong. So there is no command that prevents a woman from approaching a man while he is teaching and talking to him. As a matter of fact the context indicates that the opposite is the case. Jesus wanted the women to come and have their questions addressed and not be bogged down by domestic matters. Notice the kind of discussion that He had with them.

These are not trivial issues and He must have spent lots of time instilling this understanding in them. Jesus had no problem being interrupted or queried by women in public. Any man who adopts a contrary stance is blaspheming Christ. It seems that the men of the Church today are more important that Christ so we have to make special arrangements for being in their presence.

Jesus interrupted His Preaching for women

Tell me what you learn from this extract.

What I learn is that Christ is ready to address women's physical needs on the Sabbath while He is preaching, so then how much more would He be ready to address their spiritual ones. She did not even have to interrupt Him. He interrupted Himself.

Jesus did a lot of preaching on the Sabbath.

One would think that in all of this preaching a woman would have asked a question and there is no recorded issue of Him rejecting anybody who wanted to know about the Kingdom of God.

The woman apostle

Now I suppose that if it is justified to use a weak scripture out of context to make a case against women then it is equally justifiable to do the same in their favour.

I say that it is a weak scripture because it is subject to interpretation. Depending on how you treat the ands in the sentence then Junia could be a female apostle (you can explore the long debate over the gender of the word but it is grasping at straws). By one interpretation she is his relative who had also been imprisoned and was in the Church before him. On the question of being an apostle he did not say that she was of the twelve. Where then could this apostle thing come from? Apostles are ones sent. The Bible says in Luke 10:12 that Jesus appointed and sent out seventy (or seventy-two) others to preach. I have more on this in my article on praying for our children. People assume that they were all men but it does not say that.

An apostle is one that is sent. These were sent. Paul was also sent, just much further. He was sent to all gentiles and as far as Rome. Is Paul saying to Timothy that God was wrong and her apostleship was illegitimate?

1 Timothy 2

First of all understand the context of this letter. It was a personal letter to a close friend not a thesis. He was not saying thus saith the Lord but giving advice on how to cope with the current circumstances. Timothy was in Ephesus (I Timothy 1:3 [KJV]) As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine. He was working among gentiles. What was the specific concern? Paul's main issue was identified early in the letter: (I Timothy 1:7 [KJV]) Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. They believed that they knew the Jewish law but actually did not. They were Romans with Hellenistic culture but thought that they knew the Jewish law. I would think that Paul would be attempting to emphasize what Jewish law actually demonstrated. I have no authority for this second circumstance that stood as a background to the matter except what is online like the results of a search for The Lives of Ancient Roman Women on https://roman-empire.net/ and the article Education for Girls in Ancient Rome from the website World History Encyclopedia , https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2629/education-for-girls-in-ancient-rome/#:~:text=The%20upbringing%20 . Education was far less available to women than to men and even when provided the goal was to prepare them for domestic roles and a future as a wife and mother. This is the context of chapter 2. One key scripture that is used in defence of subjugating women Christians is in 1 Timothy 2. It begins like this:

Now the English word menis found 4 times in that extract but that is not how it is read in the Greek. The first three are

G444 ἄνθρωπος anthropos (anth'-ro-pos) n.

1. (properly) man-faced

2. (concretely) a human being (man or female)

3. (generally) all human beings

4. (indefinitely) a man, someone, one

The final one is

G435 ἀνήρ aner (an-ayr') n.

1. (properly) a man, an individual male

2. (maritally) a husband

So there is a subtle change in the context in the Greek which is not captured in the English. Paul starts out talking to people in general and then he switches to husbands or men. The same word is used for man in the final instance is used to refer to husbands in these scriptures:

Why would he switch from a word that always meant man to one that also meant husband? As I see it Paul is actually presenting another argument beginning with verse 8. He first says that we all (men and women) should pray for everybody. The second argument is introduced by the use of a different word for men. Paul now addresses the typical Roman male (which would be a husband) and then the typical Roman female which would be a wife. The Greeks had no word that meant specifically husband. Now why do I say that the intended focus is husbands and not men in some cases? Because (i) while from the definition it can be either, the meaning can never contradict the rest of the Bible and (ii) when it is in proximity to wife as it actually is with verse 9, it takes on the meaning of husband. First let us dissect this second argument from its foundation. Paul has started out here by talking about all people in general praying but now he begins to specify gender. Paul claims that the foundation for his argument is verses 13-15.

The foundation for his argument is a marriage. Childbearing is what Roman women were raised for and educated to be. He claims that Adam was not deceived consequently Adam made a conscious choice to disobey. He ate the fruit. Why? I believe that the answer is that he did not want to upset the one that he loved. There is no concrete evidence for this in scripture but he had probably been created in the evening of the sixth day shortly after sunset of the fifth day. He had to see both nocturnal and diurnal creatures in order to name them all. He was considerably more educated having had his questions answered by God Himself. Any argument about how long it took before Satan approached Eve is pure speculation but is was sufficiently short that Adams education was significantly more. Paul's argument indicates that he was more astute and since the only variable is time then that time must have been used to develop his education. Adam would have been created with the mind of a child since he was created to be in God's presence: And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, [3] And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, (Matthew 18:2-3 [KJV]). He had to be taught discernment and that would have taken some effort. On the other hand both Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day according to Genesis 1:27-31 and so it had to fit into 24 hours. He would have most likely encountered the serpent and named it before in its original form as presented by Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpents root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent (Isaiah 14:29 [KJV]) and again The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent, they will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses, and their treasures upon the bunches of camels, to a people that shall not profit them (Isaiah 30:6 [KJV]), which is the only form of serpent described in scripture that does not walk on its belly. Adam might have been curious and asked the question about the serpent before but Eve was not prepared for the serpent. When they heard God speak they hid, And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden (Genesis 3:8 [KJV]). Eve was not prepared for the serpent but Adam was not prepared for Eve. He was lovesick. In the KJV it appears that Paul is blaming Eve but Young.s literal translation puts it this way:

Eve was deceived into transgression but Adam transgressed because of love-sickness. If they had worked together they would have been victorious. Paul goes on to say that she (actually they both would be) saved in Eve's childbearing. She had to suffer in pain with each child as part payment (Genesis 3:16). Also Eve bore Seth and her descendant Mary bore Christ.

Paul has started talking about reproduction. Notice also that he says if they remain. Adam and Eve are dead. Paul is no longer talking about Eve but about women that are alive and to whom the same thing applies i.e those with partners. It is clear that Paul is talking about women in an intimate relationship not single ones i.e. they who are in a position to have children. Adam sinned because of his love for Eve, that is the strength of the argument. Genesis 2:23 in KJV is sanitized of the emotion but New English Translation reads this way, This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man. Adam was overwhelmed. The argument does not make sense if you just scrape up any female and any man who who have no bond with each other. Paul has started out here by talking about all people in general praying and now he moves to people in the intimate relationship of marriage. It appears that marriage amplifies certain proclivities that the genders have. Lets look at the second argument.

There are two issues here and I will deal with the second one first and it has to do with punctuation i.e. removing the commas. Now verses 11 -12, Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence .

Paul says in verse 8 when he is introducing the presentation on men (G435 Greek aner: men or husbands), without wrath and doubting or apart from anger and reasoning. He prefaces it with the context that he is talking to people in the Roman/Greek society i.e. gentiles hence his focus is on that society. I believe this to be more accurately translated apart from anger and debate which is something that requires a winner and a loser. In the marriage relationship (and probably any relationship with both genders) educated men dealing with less educated women (particularly narcissistic men who think they are more informed) tend to feel threatened and get angry and use their education as a weapon. In general it appears that men have a preference for problem-solving through action rather than information gathering and this may be enhanced in a society like that of ancient Rome. So what action will such a man take. The easiest is just say yes dear and appear to submit so that she will go away. Another is to project power through debate. Both are wrong. What we should do is together consult God and communicate in love. We see the general problem in men coming out with Joshua: Men don't read maps, men don't turn to God first, we always have it covered, so we have to take independent action. If Adam did consult God with Eve then he would have had a better chance of coping. That is the advice that Paul gave men. On the other hand Eve dealt with he challenge in the female way. She had no negligee to use as a weapon but she knew what was best for her husband whom she loved very much. She resorted to her weapon of choice to teach her husband, which is to use feminine wiles. I believe this because the Bible does not say that she talked with him about it first. She instinctively knew how to impose her will on him. This also requires a winner and a loser. Paul identified the types of weapons that women use when they want to teach and his emphasis was in marriage. Women should also consult God and not abuse their femininity when it comes to issues of reason and faith.

The three points that she noticed are (i) tasty and edible (ii) attractive presentation and (iii) beneficial for wisdom. From her perspective Adam could not see what was good for him so she had to convince him by using the first two, and possibly a bit more, to prime him up. Bear in mind that instead she could also have used her wiles to get him to talk to God. The wisdom is something that she wanted for Adam because that is why she took the food to him. She could have eaten the whole fruit or thrown away what was left, and why was she concerned about presentation? Because it was something that she could use. She believed that wisdom was something good for Adam and she intended that he would have it. The story does not say that She told him about Satan. When Adam was asked the question in Genesis 3:12 he did not identify Satan at all. Let us begin by looking at the meaning of doubting.

G1261 dialogismos.

1. discussion

2. (internal) consideration

3. (external) debate

4. (by implication) purpose

He is talking about starting arguments or getting into debate. Who usually start arguments (not quarrels) and get angry about situations? It is men/husbands. Now he goes on to speak about women but within the context of dealing with who is in authority over them. Which women have somebody in authority over them?

In this passage woman is:

G1135 gune.

1. a woman

2. (specially) a wife

and man is aner as above. Notice again the word for woman is the same as the word for wife. Now actually up to this point it is a toss up which you want to believe. It depends on your heart. Either position can be justified by a strict translation, so why would you want to hold to the one that keeps down women when it contradicts (i)Christs attitude to women and (ii)the evidence of the rest of Bible? Christian means that we follow Christ's example, not Paul's. Now in order to justify their position on this matter people have redefined what Paul actually says but there are some things I want you to bear in mind. Paul is not talking about at Church services, he is talking about everywhere that people represent Christ, so if a female Christian doctor observes a medical problem with a man should she should just shut up? If her medical education would clarify a point of scripture should she just shut up? If she is a professional teacher then does she have to abandon her career? It is ridiculous! What Paul's advice actually tells women who have someone over them is to look modestly attractive but do not use it to seek to control the man in their lives by using their feminine wiles, even if you think he is an idiot, for two reasons. First, the husband was made before the wife in the relationship and might have more to offer than you think and second there is a historical precedent that shows it is dangerous. It is clear that this is talking principally about marriage because Eve has authority over all of her children, male and female, right down to us (Exodus 20:12, Ephesians 6:2). Only her husband has authority over her even though there are billions of men since Adam.

In like manner

In verse 9 when Paul begins to address the subject in question he uses the phrase in like manner . in like manner means using the same approach. In like manner to what? In like manner to verse 8 i.e. lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting i.e. with blameless hands and without passion and debate. The general context is that we all pray for people in authority even if they are idiots so women should pray for their men instead of trying to manipulate them. Paul started by talking about people in authority everywhere. This is the context created by verses 1-2. Paul goes on to show that he too has been given authority in verse 8. So the natural meaning would be in the same manner as we support those in authority in general, women need to support their men or husbands in general. Applying this to women's' husbands makes sense with what Paul goes on to say but does not if it is applied to all men. Men have authority as leaders etc. and husbands have authority but there are limits and within those contexts we must support them whether we deem them good or bad. We are not to add to their authority or diminish it but to pray for them and support them.

To teach and to learn

Paul is saying that women should not teach anybody anywhere if we accept the translation as man and woman at face value, consequently women can certainly never teach men, including their husbands, anything. Remember that the context is not public speaking, it is women in the Church. So Bathsheba should not have approached David about Solomon and so on. We have the infinitives to teach in verse 12 and to learn in verse 11.

G1321 didasko.

1. to teach{in the same broad application as dao "to learn"}[a prolonged, causative form of a primary verb dao "to learn"]KJV: teach

G3129 manthano.

1. to learn (in any way)[prolongation from a primary verb, another form of which, matheo, is used as an alternate in certain tenses]KJV: learn, understand

Infinitives are the basic form of a verb and as such are not bound to a particular subject or tense (e.g. no present, past future). It suggest something that is continuous so the implication is that it is a habitual practice i.e. doing it repeatedly. However you look at it, this only makes sense if we maintain the theme of within the authority already given to them. Men are not given authority over all women anywhere in the Bible but husbands are given authority over their wives. Whether the man is a dog (as in the case of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25) or not you should make yourself look attractive within the parameters of the Bible and give him his due respect. This may mean speaking up on his behalf. It then makes perfect sense. Even if he is a dog do not try to fix and control your husband but pray and quietly grow in understanding. This is what Paul is talking about in verse 12. Adam was a husband given authority over his wife Eve. She did not respect that authority and allowed Satan to override it but women must not allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to instruct them. 1 Peter 3:13-17[NET] says, For who is going to harm you if you are devoted to what is good? [14] But in fact, if you happen to suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. But do not be terrified of them or be shaken. [15] But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. [16] Yet do it with courtesy and respect, keeping a good conscience, so that those who slander your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame when they accuse you. [17] For it is better to suffer for doing good, if God wills it, than for doing evil.

This is what all Christians must do, teach what is right in humility but Paul would be contradicting that.

Usurp authority

Let us add a little more to the argument. Verse 12 has a comma after 'man'. If the comma is removed and the words are translated as husband and wife then what does it say? But I suffer not a wife to teach nor to usurp authority over the husband but to be in silence. Now does that not make far more sense? Women in no period of history have ever been able to usurp authority over men in general, in or out of Church, so why would Paul be accusing them of it? In the Greek usurp is:

G831 authenteo.

1. to act of oneself

2. (figuratively) dominate

So it can be both but it makes more sense if it is translated as husband and wife; in addition it contradicts thousands of years of history if it is translated as man and woman. God has never put women in silence or subjection to men in general but husbands have been given authority over their wives only. Women have been required to teach even kings in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Paul commended Timothy's mother and grandmother for their job of teaching him. Women have been put in a supporting role to their husbands and should not abuse the role of teacher in the family.

If you look back at the definition it also has a meaning of to act of oneselfwith strong connotations of usurping power or to domineer, i.e. to set yourself up as the only one to be consulted or to act unilaterally. Notice that it is not saying that you cannot act just that you must consider that you have an authority to consult. This means that wives can also act but they must be in agreement with their husbands under God.

One place that you can find the meaning online is at biblestudytools.com website. Go to the
New Testament Greek Lexicon - KJV https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/. Type the word into the search bar and you should get something like:

This is what Paul is talking about.

The word silence

The real issue that is still an issue today is that men have been given authority over their wives whether the men are reprehensible or not. To be misled into oppressing women is grabbing at Satan's red herring and fulfilling God's curse on mankind given in Genesis.

This curse is often used in support of domination over women but please recognise that it is a curse and not what God intended. In verse 16 God cursed the woman then He went on to curse the man. To suggest that God wanted husbands to oppressively rule over women is to say that God wanted the ground to be full of weeds. God wants the woman to be a help meet and a partner like Priscilla and Aquila. This scripture predicts that to the woman,

This is what God said would happen and even Christians have fallen prey to it. Women want to control their husbands and the husbands dominate them instead of nurture them. It is a horrible curse come true. The word used for silence here in I Timothy 2 is translated as follows:

G2271 hesuchia.

1. (as noun) stillness, i.e. desistance from bustle or language[feminine of G2272]KJV: quietness, silence

Now tell me which meaning Paul intended as an opposite to usurp. He meant without contention,desistance from bustle. Paul is saying the same here that he is saying to Titus.

There is another Greek word for silence used in 1 Corinthians 14:34 which we will get to later. It is this:

G4601 sigao.

1. to keep silent (transitively or intransitively)[from G4602]KJV: keep close (secret, silence), hold peace

This word is the one that means not to talk.

I Corinthians 14

Now let us look at 1 Corinthians 14.

Contradictions

The first thing that we notice even before getting into any details is that it contradicts the common interpretation of 1 Timothy 2. In verses 1-5 it declares that anyone that prophesies must edify or teach. Since prophetesses prophesy they must teach. Next Paul says that he wants everybody (women included) to be prophets. Then we reach verse 26 where Paul claims that everybody (women included) had something to say at Church. Paul did not criticize the fact that they all spoke but that they did it at the same time and created confusion. Then we add 1 Corinthians 11:4-5.

Verse 5 takes it for granted that women prayed and prophesied in public because how can you convey dishonour if nobody knows. It cannot be talking about what people do in private. We know that they prayed in public because of Acts 12:5,12 where the Church prayed together at one house and also in Philippi where the women prayed in public at the river.

There seems to be an unspoken acceptance that this was not ekklesia(i.e they were not representatives of Christ) when it was only women. It only becomes ekklesia when men are there. So women can do what they want as a group but when does it change? When one man turns up, like Paul for example? Did all of the women have to stop praying when Paul came and pay homage to him somehow? I don't think so. When Paul spoke to these women then did they have to remain mute? We already talked about Anna prophesying so this is not an isolated incident. You may be able to dodge the bullet there by using some sort of double speak but you cannot dodge what Luke said.

Luke was a part of Paul's party when they went to Caesarea. Philip was a Christian long before Paul but he was not sent anywhere specifically hence he was not an Apostle in the sense of one of the twelve. He had four daughters who were prophetesses (female prophets). How could they do that without speaking in the Church? Bear in mind the the Church is the body of Christ not the building. Any group gathered in His name is His body whether that body part is a finger or a toe. Luke clearly explained what prophets did in verse 29, Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. Was Paul a hypocrite?

Ask your husband at home

This may seem like prejudice against wives today but we need to understand the circumstances. It seems that the early church meetings operated much like the synagogue system which the Jews had. The church was mixed Jewish-gentile so you would want to accommodate both.

In Roman society women were rarely educated and might be lost when it came to some relatively straight-forward issues of religion for most men of the same household or even Jewish women in similar households. If it were a problem for the men it was probably something that needed to be discussed openly. In the Jewish synagogue men and women were not seated together even when married. This means that for a woman to ask her husband anything she would have to shout so she might as well ask the speaker. Either would be disruptive so the recommendation is twofold, ask your husband and at home. For trivial matters this would be frequent and could be easily handled by the husband. It would not apply to unmarried women because they had no husband to ask. For further information you can look upMechitza which is the partition or barrier. It seems to be derived from Zechariah 12:12-14, And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;[13] The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;[14] All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart [KJV].

The issue of being quiet then in verse 34 is made clear. First of all the Greek word translated women is once again gune which we already demonstrated is also translated as wife. While it may apply to all women it is more likely to be focused on married women who had a husband to ask later. Notice that this is part of the topic of confusion in church (note verse 33) not female protocol. Verse 34 goes on to say that wives are therefore not permitted to talk (talk does not mean do public speaking). God does not intended for women to be subjugated, he created a help-meet. Men have abused their position as He prophesied in Genesis 3:16, Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, [KJV].

As we previously discussed, this is a curse that came because of disobedience not a model for life, but that is how men have interpreted it. A similar curse is found in Isaiah.

God said that women will have the tendency to want to rule over men because of Satan but he does not say that they should be ruled overby Christlike men because that is a curse and Christ does not treat his wife according to a curse. Look at what He explained to the same Ephesians that Luke was writing about in Acts 19 above in a letter.

That is not according to the curse from Genesis. God intended a partnership not one abusing the other. Most Christian men have a sense of this in spite of the foolishness that tradition has encouraged, but when something supporting tradition is seen in black and white it is assumed to be true and some men relent.

Women Teach Women

Paul advises Titus to let women teach women. Notice the background to the letter: Titus 1:4-5 [KJV] To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. [5] For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee. Titus was to organize the Church in Crete. Crete is the largest Greek island, and the fifth largest in the Mediterranean covering about 8,336 square kilometers (3,219 square miles), making it roughly the size of the US state of Delaware or slightly larger than Cyprus. It is a big place. Paul was giving him advice based on his experience. It was not an open letter to the Church. It was not written to example to James at Jerusalem or to the Church at Antioch. Titus was to establish church groups in villages and Paul wanted to ensure that they were stable.

First notice that Paul distinctly states in verse 5 that obedience is due only to their own husbands. They have no obligation to other men. Why is this considered to be practical and useful advice? Remember that we talked about the 'Mechitza' or dividing wall in the Church. Women sat in proximity to other women. If the aged women took on the responsibility to respond to the questions of the younger then this would reduce the confusion at services and the exposure of the speaker because unmarried women would not have to ask or approach the speaker. Paul did not say that this was to be done only at home as some interpret it, but so that the word of God would not be blasphemed. It was to help married and unmarried women deal with scriptural challenges. It was to set the priorities of a young Church group. The letter comprises only 3 chapters and he also talks about slaves (Titus 2:9) and avoiding conflict with the state (Titus 3:1).

Silence

We are on the subject of 1 Corinthians 14 and you can see that here the Greek word does mean to hold your peace or stop talking. That is the issue which Paul was addressing. That was not the issue with Timothy and Ephesus. The book of Timothy has 6 chapters and the background is distinctly different from that to Titus.

Timothy was at Ephesus and this book was written quite a while after the Corinthian situation. Ephesus was an established Roman hub identified in Revelation 2 as on the Roman mail route and the problem identified to Timothy (I Timothy 1:7) was that too many people believed that they knew the law but actually did not. The letter is to help Timothy to establish a strategy. Again it is not written to James at Jerusalem or to the Church at Antioch. Paul wants all these people to learn what Jewish law promoted as opposed to Hellenistic superstition. A lot of big-shots passed through there and so they could see themselves as knowledgeable. Notice Titus 3:12-13 [KJV], When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for I have determined there to winter. [13] Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them. This is not the same as the background to the Corinthian situation. His letter was written to the church. Paul wanted those in Corinth to shut up. He used the following Greek word:

G4601 sigao.

1. to keep silent (transitively or intransitively)[from G4602]KJV: keep close (secret, silence), hold peace

This is in contrast to the word used in 1 Timothy which meant something akin to submission. In 1 Corinthians silence translated from Greek sigao is used twice in close proximity: (I Corinthians 14:28 [KJV]) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God; and (I Corinthians 14:34 [KJV]),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. Paul's letter to the Corinthians was to address a matter of spiritual laxity that was exposed by their behaviour and one area of specific concern was prophecy. Paul's subject in 1 Corinthians 14 is not women but prophecy. He was not denying prophecy but insisting that, just like all other matters in God's Church it was to be orderly i.e. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, . . . (I Corinthians 14:33 [KJV]). When you compare verse 28 to with verse 34 it is clear that Paul did not intend that women never speak but that they would speak less. In verse 28 He says that if prophets (either male or female) cannot prophecy orderly then they should shut up. Similarly he says that if the concern of a wife was not first raised at home (this assumes that the man at home was a Christian) then they should shut up. They are under no obligation to talk. Paul recognized that order would be greatly improved by arresting these two. Remember that we are talking about Corinthians (gentiles) in a Jewish type arrangement like a synagogue. Jewish women would be used to this and in any case would have been more educated in the scriptures from their childhood. Recall the story of Timothy's grandmother Lois, and mother Eunice being the foundation of his faith, whereas the Corinthians had no such background and they had lots of questions. The passage also claims that they are not permitted. This is another poor translation. Permitted comes from G2010, Greek epitrepo: which literally means to turn over to someone, and properly to entrust an executive charge to another (i.e. custodial care and management). It is saying that they are under no obligation to speak not that they may not speak. Whenever you feel the spirit you do not have to shout it out.

What Law?

The words they are commanded in verse 34 quoted just above, are added by the translators and are not in the original. It changes the whole intent of the sentence. Paul is saying something like Let your wives keep silence in the churches: for they do not have to speak; but they do have a commanded bond to be the subordinate with their husbands, as also saith the law. The Greek word translated as obedience is G5293 hupotassomeaning: 1. to subordinate and2. (reflexively) to obey. In other words the law commands that you be a help meet to your husband where you work it out together but it does not command you to talk in Church gatherings. There is no commandment or specific law that tells women to shut up. Paul is pointing out that even under they Torah they had no obligation to speak but only an obligation to be obedient to God which demands that they use the marriage relationship. In the wilderness they turned it around and were not obedient but indulged in that complaining and bickering which was a problem to God. Paul also saysIf any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. This means that somewhere God must have given these instructions already otherwise they cannot be verified. Paul is not adding anything new. The subject is orderliness and that is how Paul sums it up in verse 40, Let all things be done decently and in order. God demonstrates His love for order. Genesis on creation shows order day by day; everything was created after its kind i.e. animals do not suddenly produce seeds; the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it; God changed darkness and without form to light and structure; He told man to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; animals going to the ark were sent in order; laying out the tribes around the tabernacle and in the promised land; moving with the pillar of cloud or fire; the rituals at the temple/Tabernacle; the Sabbaths and Holy Days; and in the writings we have Ecclesiastes 3:1-22 talking about a time for everything. He also demonstrates His distaste for bickering and inappropriate prattle in the wilderness. In spite of the clear focus of the chapter people latch on to two verses (34-35) out of context and make a doctrine out of it.

Talking or public speaking

By now it should be obvious that Paul was not picking on women but he wanted everybody who spoke needlessly to shut up. Let me introduce this segment by examining the definition of speak. All of the words in bold in the passage are translated from the same root word.

G2980 laleo.

1. to talk, i.e. utter words[a prolonged form of an otherwise obsolete verb]KJV: preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter

we also have the following from another source:

Laleoto

utter a voice or emit a sound to speak to use the tongue or the faculty of speech to utter articulate sounds to talk to utter, tell to use words in order to declare one's mind and disclose one's thoughts to speak

Paul is therefore not discussing public speaking but talking in general, especially when your talking is inappropriate. He looks at talking in general and compares it to God's standards for orderliness. Paul does not specifically address delivering a sermon-like speech. This raises the question of what the women were talking about? Christ showed that we should always be ready to help someone attain the Kingdom of God and He was eager to help women. From his experience Paul knew that the women were presenting matters could be handled by husbands at home? They were most likely not very significant otherwise Paul's example is opposite to Christ's. This happened before the letter to Timothy but the situation with the gentile women was the same.

Even today when we say that someone should not talk we we do not mean that they should talk under no circumstances but that their talk should conform to the universal norms for the situation. If I say that children should not talk in class it does not mean that they should not participate in class discussions or make presentations but that talking outside of the classroom norms is not permitted. Norms are things that everybody is expected to know. It is obvious to me that everybody understood that women prophesied and prayed publicly, as demonstrated above. These would be the norms assumed to be excluded from any criticism of talking, and as Christ demonstrated, legitimate discourse was assumed.

Cover Your Head

In Deuteronomy we learn that hair represents power or authority over a woman.

This principle is used in 1 Corinthians to explain that women should never remove their hair but that men should. A woman's hair shows that a man has authority over her and a man's lack of hair shows that there is no human authority over him.

The scripture is self-explanatory. Paul is talking about deliberately cutting off your hair. It has spiritual implications. If you have alopecia areata (AA) it is not a spiritual problem but if a woman cuts her hair in a male style it shows a lack of discernment. Paul points that out with examples.

Conclusion

It is unfortunate that men have taken two scriptures out of context to create a doctrine that cannot be supported by Christ's example or the Old Testament or the example of the Apostles. God has pronounced a curse on the people of the earth because they turned to Satan and rejected Him. That curse is not intended for those who have repented and turned to their Lord and Creator but Christians are some of the chief offenders in perpetuating this curse. Let us do our best to avoid it.