Introduction
Sisters’ different service to the spiritual life of NT ecclesias complements the contribution of brethren and is also of symbolic significance.[1] Sisters’ silence at a conventional Christadelphian Sunday breaking of bread meeting (as also wearing a head-covering) is sometimes challenged. What is often not well-positioned or put forward is the vital and integral nature of the contribution to the Christ-ecclesial symbology that only the sisters can make. Often, feminist agendas or wrongly angled equality assumptions distort or do not promote this symbology.
Contextualizing Sisters’ Speaking
What we call a ‘Memorial Meeting’ today is assumed to relate to the Lord’s Supper in the texts of 1 Corinthians 11 and 14.[2] As originally spoken about, it is that moment above all that situates a sister’s silent and submissive spirituality, coupling with the brethren’s roles in which several of them speak[3], so that the Lord’s death is edifyingly remembered and “announced until he comes”. In this situation, both genders engage in self-examination relative to the spirit of Christ or discerning his body. Therefore, such Biblically characterised conditions define what it is to be “decently and in order” (1 Cor 14:30); ideally all who partake knowingly fulfil the aims of this ‘coming together’ moment. This occasion, distinguished from other NT situations where sisters’ speech acts are featured, is the foundation and starting point of this essay.[4]
In these 1 Corinthian texts, terms of reference like ‘coming together’, ‘upon/concerning the same’, and ‘in ecclesia’ are key framework creating constructs for us to determine and practice what it is to be part of the Lord’s Supper. This Christian tradition was delivered from the Lord to Paul, part of his abundance of revelations (2 Cor 12:1, 7), and from him to us via the Corinthian epistle (1 Cor 11:2, 23).
A Scriptural Framework and its Constructs
An apostle’s ecclesial gender language is of heavenly purpose; is not of this world; and is thus culture-transcendent or timeless. Accordingly, we cannot dismiss the language as of just another time and culture. Peter, in fellowship with Paul, pens perspectives like ‘weaker vessel’ (1 Pet 3:7) as a comparative characterisation of the Christ-woman. Given this difference, the Christ-man compensates by honouring the woman/wife, within their designed (‘help-meet’) complementarity (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5, 6; Mark 10:8; Eph 5:31).[5]
In the Creator’s foreknown purpose, the man and woman,[6] originally separately and differently formed, are designed to prefigure Christ’s ideal relationship: “the great mystery of Christ and the ecclesia” (Eph 5:22-33). This has to do with “passing the love of women” (2 Sam 1:26; Eph 3:19; 4:16); God’s love for us in Christ and Christ’s for his ecclesial bride; thereby “knowing the love of Christ that passes knowledge that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph 3:19).[7]
Thus, man and woman in Christ, whether “the married” (1 Cor 7:10) or not, manifest (fidelity to) this transcendent or “first love” (Rev 2:4, with Eph 1:4-10 and Prov 4:6-7, where this is embodied in feminised wisdom, God’s delight before creation: “Forsake her not…love her…wisdom is the first [KJV ‘principal’] thing”). Preordained, this love is of/for God: “We love him, because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). From God it extends in Christ to each saint, and thereby saint-to-saint. Behaviourally constraining (Eph 4:25) to be “accepted in the beloved” (Eph 1:6), it is the fulfilling of the first commandment, loving God, and the second like unto it loving our ecclesial neighbour (Mark 12:28-34; Eph 4:25).
Although this ideal genderless love (“…unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently” KJV 1 Pet 1:22), prefiguring Christ’s union with his ecclesia, is reciprocal between man and man, man and woman, woman and woman in Christ, gender difference was divinely designed for love’s depiction in sin-free Eden. Hence, there is a bride and a bridegroom. This is as told from the beginning in the gender arrangement “God joined together” (Matt 19:6; Mark 10:9), and in “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman [ecclesial-bride] for the man [Christ-bridegroom]” (1 Cor 11:8-9). The Lord’s Supper should therefore evoke or imitate Eden in this respect. Is not this about confirmed covenant hope of communion with our Lord in paradise?
Fellowship at the Lord’s Supper
The sacrificed-based fellowship moment has to do with that ‘coming together’ which engages with these ‘of the Lord’ elements: table, cup, supper, body and blood, and (to “announce his”) death (“until…”). Both man and woman participate or contribute to this symbolic and typological moment. That is, it is not just the bread and the wine or the supper itself as a whole that has a symbolic and typological significance, but also those involved—men and women.
In the Old Testament (OT) ecclesia in the wilderness (Acts 7:38), those baptised into Moses were “the body of Moses” (cf. Jude 1:9). The rites and prescriptions for priestly practice, and particularly the annual Day of Atonement, were in shadow or type both tutorial and a measure of what Jesus would accomplish, once for all, in his prepared body (Heb 10:5; John 2:19-22) as the ‘true’ (Heb 9:24. Cf. 1 Cor 10:1-6 ‘eat and drink’, and ‘examples’ = ‘types’). It is about this ‘body’ that discerning first takes place at the Lord’s Supper, aided by sharing the bread-body symbol. In this act of sharing, we identify ourselves as the body of Christ and as such we acknowledge that Christ is the head of the body (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23).
Headship can also be seen in the case of the body of Moses. Moses should have been to Miriam and Aaron a prefigurement of the greatest prophet Yahweh would raise-up (Acts 7:37; cf. Deut 18:15). Speaking without submissiveness to the Divine arrangements (Num 12:8), as they did against Moses (their ‘Lord’, cf. Aaron in Num 12:11), Yahweh judged that Miriam the prophetess (Exod 15:20) should be put out of the camp seven days; His anger temporarily marking her as a leper (Num 12:10, 15). So, although both Aaron and Miriam were guilty, the punishment of his sister caused Aaron to plead with Moses for her. Miriam and Aaron had both said: “Has Yahweh indeed spoken only by Moses? Has he not spoken also by us? And Yahweh heard it” (Num 12:2). This outcome for Miriam suggests her speech-act had usurping intent; it violated the typology.
In Ecclesia
‘In ecclesia’ (KJV 1 Cor 11:18; 14:19, 28, 35 has “in the church” for the Greek phrase evn evkklhsi,a|) is being in an assembly and state resulting from having ‘come together’; doing so, in Greek idiom, ‘upon the same’ (thing or purpose, as in Acts 2:44; 3:1; or negatively as in Acts 4:26; [the KJV ‘into one place’ is wrong]). The idiom stresses the ‘together’ aspect that is a manifestation of a collective and complementary ‘unity’.
Messianic ‘Father and son’ typology is seen in Abraham and Isaac both going “together” in Gen 22:6 and 8, where wdxy/yHdw (a form of dxy/yHD, ‘together’ as per Ps 2:2) is used. Added to this, Yahweh’s thrice repeated characterization of Isaac as ‘your only one’ $dyxy/yHydk (Gen 22:2, 12, 16), stressing his uniqueness, structurally connects with the Hebrew for both ‘one’ and ‘together’. In fact, KJV Ps 133:1, with expanded paraphrase, exploits the ‘together’ and ‘one(ness)’ senses associated with words from this y-H-d/dxy stem in “Brethren . . . dwell together in unity.” Participants in ecclesia should spiritually enact and discern this kind of ‘together’ in order worthily to fulfil “announc[ing] the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26).
It is of note regarding the phrase ‘in the church’ (e.g. 1 Cor 12:28) that sometimes there is the definite article in the Greek with the grammatically singular ‘church’/‘ecclesia’. For example,
This is he that was in the church in the wilderness (Acts 7:38).
The underlined phrase includes the definite article. This ecclesia is the body of Moses, the whole (mobile) congregation or (called out of Egypt) assembly in that desert setting. The presence of the definite article creates a distinction semantically from the anarthrous (article absent) form: evn evkklhsi,a|. ‘In ecclesia’ is about a state realised in the ecclesia at some point in time (e.g. the first day of the week), or in a place (e.g. “from house to house”, Acts 2:46; “the ecclesia that is in Nymphas’ house”, Col 4:15).
‘In ecclesia’ presents the ‘in’ relationally like ‘in Christ’ does. Only those ‘in Christ’ can be ‘in ecclesia’.
In English, we differentiate senses of ‘in church’ from ‘in a church’ or ‘in the church’, which do not need spelling out here. However, I am not supposing these English ‘church’ senses, with or without ‘in’, map identically onto Greek New Testament’s (GNT) ‘ecclesia’ in Corinthians or elsewhere.[8] The GNT is making systematic use within a narrow context of ‘in ecclesia’, or ‘in congregation’/‘in assembly’[9] as it might be translated (although compare the Hebrew ‘convocation’ discussed in p. 29 n. 1).
Come Together
1 Cor 11:18’s language “For first of all, when ye come together evn evkklhsi,a” and ‘come together’ used elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 (1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26) is an indicator that Paul is talking about the Breaking of Bread meeting. We should also note the collocation of ‘come together’ + ‘upon the same’ (evpi. to. auvto. , 1 Cor 11:20; 14:23) to signify common purpose in relation to the Memorial Meeting.[10]
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper… 1 Cor 11:20 (Literally: ‘come together upon the same’/Sunercome,nwn evpi. to. auvto, )
If therefore the whole church be come together into one place. 1 Cor 14:23 (Literally: ‘be come together upon the same’: sune,lqh| evpi. to. auvto,v)
How is it then, brethren? When ye come together/sune,rchsqe. 1 Cor 14:26.[11]
It is in this context and setting that Paul includes his instruction about women and silence.
Silence
With regard to women-in-Christ/sisters, we can use the foregoing constructs as the framework for the discussion of 1 Cor 14:34-35,
Let (your)[12] 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. 1 Cor 14:34 (KJV)
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home [= ‘in home’: evn oi;kw|]: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church [= ‘in ecclesia’: evn evkklhsi,a|.]. 1 Cor 14:35 (KJV)
We would make the following points:
(1) Women are to ‘keep silence’, and compliantly not ‘speak’ when ‘in ecclesia’ in the ecclesias. This moment or state concerns what it is decent and orderly to do to manifest ‘obedience’, to avoid ‘shame’, to fulfil ‘come together upon the same’, so that ‘announcing the Lord’s death until…’ takes place and all are edified.
(2) Greek forms of lale,w rendered by forms of ‘speak’ occur 24x in 1 Cor 14 (vv. 2 (3x), 3, 4, 5 (2x), 6 (2x), 9 (2x), 11 (2x), 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 39).[13] This is the highest concentration of instances of ‘speak’ forms in the Bible. Specifying what speaking and by whom (including how many in ecclesia; 1 Cor 14:27) is the focus as the means to edify. The man is always the speaker in this context.
(3) There is a provision made for a woman to learn, that can involve her asking-speaking, but this necessarily relates to a different moment/occasion or state. Both ‘in ecclesia’ and ‘in home’ are contrasted in 1 Cor 14:35, cited above. The situation, ‘in/at home’ is where Paul counsels some to eat (1 Cor 11:34) before coming together ‘in ecclesia’ without distraction to eat the Lord’s Supper, i.e., symbolic food.
(4) For the reasons given in 1 Cor 14:28, 30, there are times when a man has to ‘keep silence’ or ‘hold his peace’ (Gk: siga,tw[14]). However, in the ecclesias, when ‘in ecclesia’, ‘keeping silence’ (using a cognate of siga,tw the Greek word of vv. 28, 30) is applied universally to women in v. 34.
(5) This God-designed ecclesial arrangement reflects the creative order and need met by God when forming a woman out of the man for the man: two thereby can become one: “This is a great mystery…concerning Christ and the ecclesia” (Eph 5:31-32). This creation order, represented in the opening section of 1 Corinthians 11, is connected with prohibiting (the speaking that is) teaching in Paul’s prescriptions:
1 Tim 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
2:11 Let the woman learn in silence quietness [evn h`suci,a|: cf. Acts 22:2; 2 Thess 3:12] with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence quietness [evn h`suci,a|].[15]
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
However, although in principle such behavioural constraints regarding women-in-Christ ‘learning’ and ‘not teaching’ are appropriate to ‘in ecclesia’, this situation in Timothy is not presented as ‘in ecclesia’ and therefore relates as well to other moments. It is relatable to ‘in/at home’ (1 Cor 14:35): a state which is not ‘in ecclesia’.
To have ecclesial members ‘in home’ (evn oi;kw), but not ‘in ecclesia’ when in someone’s house, means that being there is simply not about a ‘coming together upon the same’ as when done to eat the Lord’s Supper.[16]
So, in 1 Tim 2:11 this is not a ‘silence of not speaking’, but a ‘quietness of submission’ (“as becomes women professing godliness”). Since it is about a behavioural disposition of the woman in learning, and does not imply that a woman can’t say/ask anything of the man teaching her, this is not an ‘in ecclesia’ context: it is not the breaking of bread. Obviously, not teaching, where to do so would be to usurp authority over the man, means a man/brother would have to be present for that (wrongly or potentially) to happen.
She cannot teach ecclesial-men, since men being in the type of Christ do the teaching. For her to attempt to do so in the presence of a Christ-man would be to usurp Christ’s order and authority; it would oppose the submissive sisterly spirit sought. So, a woman/sister manifesting the submission to a man-head as teacher or edifier of a woman-ecclesial-bride/wife still applies.[17]
To illustrate this, take the following two examples:
- Martha can ask her Lord to tell Mary to assist her (Luke 10:40), begin a discussion with Jesus, or reply to him on doctrinal matters (John 11:21ff.), but neither Martha, Mary, or other women in serving/ministering to him (diakone,w, Mark 15:41; Luke 8:3; John 12:2) are teaching him.
- With respect to converting someone to the right way both Priscilla and Aquila cooperated: ‘…they expounded – evxe,qento – to [Apollos] the way of God more perfectly’ (Acts 18:26). This instruction-giving was certainly not ‘in ecclesia’; Apollos was not yet in Christ as they were in Christ. Priscilla, without violating silence or submissiveness to her Christ-man Aquila, could speak, her subject being the man Apollos. Therefore, this married couple could combine in this extra-ecclesial, preaching-like, moment. (See p. 35, n. 2).
On the basis of the foregoing points (1-5), and our earlier considerations, we can say that, for the Memorial Meeting, two (complementarily designed) parties ‘come together’ ‘upon the same’ to manifest Christ, and more: his marriage supper. This connects with why there is subjection exhibited by silence and the head-covering symbolism of the woman.
The woman represents the ecclesial-bride of Christ; the man represents the bridegroom-head: Christ, (which is why the man’s head is not covered so identifying ‘headship’). The ecclesial-Christ-man can speak as prescribed in order to edify the ecclesial-bridal-woman (i.e. both brethren and sisters) to prepare (this collective) ‘her’ (Rev 19:7) for the final coming together of the marriage supper of the Lamb. ‘Lamb’ in ‘the Lamb’s wife’ in Rev 19:7; 19:9; 21:9 shows what the man Christ Jesus has done in “giving himself” in love for his ecclesial-wife (Eph 5:25) in sacrificial obedience.
The women’s role ‘in ecclesia’ and ‘in the ecclesias’ representing subjection before their men, is a palpable measure of what the ecclesia’s Lord has done for them both by his subjection to his Father (Heb 5:7-9). The desire of the Christ-woman is towards the Christ-man, and this is most evident ‘in ecclesia’ when both parties ‘come together upon the same’. However, specifically, the sister’s (true) spirit seeks to manifest that her Lord “rules in her” (the Hebrew is ‘in’ in Gen 3:16).
The power of the previous paragraph’s point would be evident in the NT era in the spirit gift context of “praying or prophesying” when a woman would speak.[18] Complying with the command not to speak ‘in ecclesia’ she would not utter prayer nor prophesy.
Singing and the Question of Speaking
It is argued that if sisters are to be silent in the Breaking of Bread then they should not be singing. Is this correct? The two main texts are,
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord… Eph 5:19
…teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. Col 3:16
Christadelphian convention includes several hymns in the Sunday Memorial Meeting, some before breaking of bread and some after it. Not so in the NT. At some point whilst still sharing this unique (also typological) moment around the table with his disciples, after the bread and wine, following which Jesus said “arise and let us go hence” (John 14:31) and went to the Mount of Olives (Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26), they (he and them) engaged in singing praise. With respect to ‘speaking, teaching and admonishing’ it is to be noted that just as both parties, Christ and his (typical) bride, engaged in praising, so it is in the epistles (‘to yourselves’ and ‘one another’).
So, when all ‘come together’ a brother has a psalm (1 Cor 14:26), but it is the spiritual (pneumatikai/j, Eph 5:19) content of what is sung, in this melodic harmony manifesting medium, that does the speaking, teaching, or admonishing.[19] Therefore, the principle of sisters not speaking ‘in ecclesia’ is not violated; they complementarily make-up “one voice”—two becoming one—taught of God. This does not restrict the singing of praise and thanksgiving to this one moment (Heb 13:15; Jas 5:13).
Bible Classes, Business Meetings and Preaching
In the community, a Bible Class is set up with formal functions (president, hymn, prayer, reading, talk, and perhaps discussion) and used for teaching. There is no obvious term or precedent for a ‘Bible Class’ in the New Testament.[20] A Bible class or an internal ecclesial teaching-learner construct cannot therefore be ‘in ecclesia’; so how sisters feature will be different.
Typically, it is only this formality (or perhaps it is in some cases uncertainty about sisters’ roles) that prevents a sister from asking (or being allowed to ask) a question. Certainly, she can’t teach (or let her question lead her to teach) since that violates the pattern; as noted above in the ecclesias. Teaching in the ecclesias is by a ‘man speaking as the oracles of God’ (1 Peter 4:11).
It is not the presence of formal functions that determine whether a sister should speak or not; just as these are not relevant (as criteria) to support the tradition among us that she should wear a ‘head-covering’ (sic) at other meetings as well as the Breaking of Bread. A Bible Class is not about, it does not construct, those terms and conditions of ‘coming together’ ‘upon the same’ to be ‘in ecclesia’, that apply to the Lord’s Supper.
Of course, if a decision is made to lead from a Bible Study/Class into a breaking of bread moment, then at the point of the definable change from class to the Lord’s supper, the coming together conditions apply, sisters cover their heads and brethren speak, two or at the most three, and the earlier Bible Class has no bearing or determining relevance on what is done.
Situations arise where breaking of bread follows a baptism. The same transference applies so that there is recognition and application of the breaking of bread.
Business Meetings
A business meeting, so called, with ecclesial members present, is not about ‘teaching’, and our formal form (presider, prayers, perhaps a reading, and in democracy imitative cases of presenting, seconding or voting on some proposal) does not have any obvious parallel in the NT ecclesia. It would be hard to defend from scripture, therefore, that where there is no spiritual teaching purpose an ecclesial-woman must not speak at all. However, the behavioural virtues of Christ apply to all parties on all occasions: “Likewise, you younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yes, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble” (1 Pet 5:5).
A sister/ecclesial-woman may point out during a business meeting something about which others, including elders present, seem to be unaware. This may be some practical concern for which she has some experience or can contribute (perhaps professional or qualified) expertise. To speak thus is not to teach something related to what is spiritual.
Of course, it may be that in the course of what she speaks on some practical matter some brethren, or elders, see spiritual implications, cite scripture or draw on its moral perspectives. If this arena is introduced then the most a sister might contribute, again if something of scriptural or Godly import had been missed, would be giving (non-teaching) ‘advice’, like Abigail did. All this is necessarily qualified or constrained by the love and principles of Christ.
Conclusion
My essay has applied scripture both to clarify and magnify sisters’ roles in ecclesial contexts, specifically in relation to their speaking or not; when and why. We appear to have let certain alien traditions deprive us, in practice or understanding, of the spiritual benefit intended for both the man and the woman in Christ in (our not consistently applying) the tradition once delivered.
So, I have sought to raise awareness of the constructs and NT ideals of Lord’s Supper ‘in ecclesia’ moment, as given in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, and how a sister’s contribution to it is profoundly spiritual and symbolic. What makes this significant is that the Christ-man cannot do representatively what she does, and part of her contribution is to manifest silence and submissive teachability, as unto the Lord.[21]
Other contexts were visited, presented as ‘in home’ or non-‘in ecclesia’ moments, when a sister could speak. This led to a consideration of what kind of speech-act it was to whom or how it was directed (e.g. asking her husband in home).
NT women Mary, Martha, Priscilla were mentioned, and to their example could be added some general categories like: (i) “the aged women” who “teach” or “admonish” the young women to love their husbands…” (Tit 2:3-4), or the speaking implied in (ii) the younger women “guide the house” (1 Tim 5:14). Miriam was referred to as a negative case of speaking against messianic type Moses. Abigail submissively ‘advising’ David contrasts with prophetess Miriam, who in speaking as she did usurped the authority of the meekest of men (Num 12:3) messianic type Moses.
Above all, the ideal of the “first love” coupling man and woman in Christ with each other, and with God and Christ, as divinely foreordained, was emphasised as providing a foretaste of the marriage supper of the Lamb, and beyond.
[1] Studies on the man and woman in Christ in the New Testament (NT) ecclesia, undertaken in 1986 at the Cambridge City ecclesia, resulted in changes to our perspectives and practices particularly to do with the breaking of bread. This present article, assuming this experience, attempts a fresh and extended treatment on sisters speaking or not in NT ecclesial contexts. Inevitably, this invites comparison with Christadelphian practice.
[2] Whilst my focus on these two chapters is to situate the topic discussed in the context and language of the ‘coming together’ of the Lord’s Supper, I am aware of the prior contribution of 1 Corinthian 10’s related language of: one (body, bread); koinonia (KJV’s: communion/partakers/fellowship); and the ecclesia of God. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10, speaks of the experience of ecclesial-Israel in the wilderness as typological, or of Christ in spirit.
[3] 1 Cor 14:27, 29, 31 (“For you may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted/exhorted”).
[4] My footnotes perform a complementary or compensatory role, offering detail purposively diverted from the main text, and thus reducing evidence and argument in it, e.g. where the matter of a ‘head-covering’ is associated to complete the picture in the relevant context (cf. p. 35, n. 2).
[5] Paul is authorised to address how ecclesial-women should present themselves both in costume and conduct (1 Tim 2:9).
[6] The primary senses of the Greek terms avnh,r/anēr and gunh. /gunē are ‘man’ and ‘woman’, respectively, or as in their plural equivalents: “…they were baptized, both men and women” (KJV Acts 8:12). Given the context of married relations, roles or issues (cf. “the married” in 1 Cor 7:10; connect with “heirs together of the grace of life” in 1 Pet 3:7), 1 Corinthians 7 contrasts with 1 Corinthians 11 in that the Greek ‘anēr’ and ‘gunē’ words in the earlier chapter are attended by additional (personal or possessive) terms and grammar that logically transform their senses into ‘husband’ and ‘wife’: e.g. “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own [woman =] wife, and let every woman have her own [man =] husband” (1 Cor 7:2).
However, where there is talk specifically of male and female members in the ecclesia or body of Christ, ‘man’ and ‘woman’, whether married or not, will be meant, as in 1 Cor 11, vv. 5-12, and 15. The natural level is replaced by the spiritual, this gender coming-together is transposed into “passing the love of women” (2 Sam 1:26; cf. Eph 3:19); where ‘man’ signifies the Christ-husband (bridegroom), and ‘woman’ the Christ-wife (bride), the Lamb’s wife
Outside of such moments, as treated in other epistles, where the behaviour of married partners or their roles in the home bringing-up children is presented, the Greek terms ‘anēr’ and ‘gunē’ take on the sense of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, as in 1 Corinthians 7. Thus, the spirit of Christ manifested in a marital union matches that between the genders in the ecclesial breaking of bread: “Wives/women submit yourselves unto your own husbands/men, as unto the Lord” (Eph 5:22).
[7] This implicit account of ecclesial (bride and bridegroom) love provides the reason for 1 Corinthians 13, the chapter on ‘love’, being located where it is.
[8] ‘Church’ is not a suitable correlate for the Greek ‘ecclesia’/evkklhsi,a which does not include in its semantic range, as English ‘church’ does, an architectural or place sense. NT Christians did not “go to church”; ‘ecclesia’ is not slot into such a (Sunday habit) sentence. Further, in the NT, ‘ecclesia’ is used of both civic and religious summoned gatherings (cf. Thayer: e;kklhtoj[gk] called out or forth and this from [gk]evkkale,w). Thus, ‘assembly’ not ‘church’ suits the civic circumstance as a translation in Acts 19: 32, 39, and 41.
Along with many other words in English adapted from Greek the term ‘ecclesiastical’ would accommodate the use of the transliteration ‘ecclesia’; translations like ‘assembly’ or ‘congregation’, however, feature some semantic transfer
Recent versions of Heb 2:12, like NKJV, drop ‘church’ for ‘assembly’ with ‘in the midst of the assembly’. This NT text reproduces Ps 22:22 (23 MT) and thus connects evkklhsi,a with lhq/qhl, although this Hebrew term is about ‘assemble’ or ‘gather’ not ‘call’. (In Ps 22:25 [26 MT] lhqb /bqhl is rendered by ‘in’ plus ‘assembly’: ‘My praise shall be of You in the great assembly’ [NKJV]).
A note in passing: the term evkklhsi,a can be linked to the Hebrew arqm/mqr’, ‘convocation’; a cognate of arq/qr’ meaning ‘call’. This ‘call’ element is punned-on in Isa 1:13, though this is not evident in the English ‘assemblies’: ‘the calling of assemblies [convocation]’ arqm arq/qr’ mqr’. Further, an Israelite ‘called out of Egypt’, redeemed by Yahweh (1 Chron 17:21; Isa 43:1; Hos 11:1), became one of God’s called—‘My called’ yarqm/mqr´y (Isa 48:12. See p. 29 n. 2, below)—thus connectable to a ‘(holy) assembly/convocation’ (cf. Exod 12:16, 16; Lev 23:2).
[9] ‘In called out-ness’ would be an interpretative attempt to give fuller value to ‘evn evkklhsi,a’.
[10] evpi. to. auvto. (lit. ‘upon/concerning the same’) is typically rendered ‘together’: cf. Matt 22:34; Luke 17:35; Acts 1:15; 2:1, 44; 3:1; 4:26; 1 Cor 7:5; 11:20; 14:23. Its use in Acts 4:26 connects by quotation with the Hebrew ‘together’—dxy/yHd—of Ps 2:2 and is thus also related to the number ‘one’: dxa /´Hd. Such language, used of fellowship or close personal relations, is presupposed in the unity or ‘together(ness)’ of God in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) in “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). Thus, although a related idiom, ‘according to the same’ [spirit]— kata. to. auvto. —as rendered by ASV 1 Cor 12:8, is not used with ‘come together’ or ‘in assembly’, its fellowship associations are evident in its single use to do with Paul and Barnabus in Acts 14:1 “they went both together”. In 1 Cor 7:5, the case of a man and woman to ‘come together again’ is word-for-word: ‘and again upon the same come together’ (kai. pa,lin evpi. to. auvto. sune,rchsqe, Byz). The ecclesial man and woman, who typify Christ and his bride, reflect this usage.
[11] At this point evpi. to. auvto, is still implied; it is still within the framework of ‘in ecclesia’, whose last occurrence is 1 Cor 14:35.
[12] Note ‘your’ + ‘women’ is in the Byzantine text, but not in some editions.
[13] KJV ‘speak (12x): vv. 6, 9, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 39; speaketh (9x): vv 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 11, 13; speaking (1x): v. 6; spake (1x): v. 5; spoken (1x): v. 9.
[14] Cf. cognates of siga,tw/sigatō which show speaking stopped: Luke 9:36 (KJV ‘kept it close’ is in NKJV “they kept quiet, and told no one”); 20:26; Acts 12:17; 15:12, 13; Rev 8:1. In Acts 21:40 ‘…there was made a great silence [gk]sigh/j[/gk]’ is paralleled or added to with hesuchia in the same context in Acts 22:2, when the same crowd ‘kept the more silence [gk]h`suci,an[/gk]’..
[15] All instances of h`suci,a|/hesuchia: Luke 14:4; 23:56; Acts 11:18; 21:14; 22:2; 1 Thess 4:11; 2 Thess 3:12; 1 Tim 2:2, 11, 12; 1 Pet 3:4. It is clear that these terms in context yield a behavioural sense or a state to do with quietness, (deciding) to cease from some activity like speaking, or rest (e.g. on the Sabbath day according to commandment Luke 23:56).
[16] Although that is not to say that an ‘in ecclesia’ come together moment cannot take place in someone’s house/home (evn oivki,a| Matt 26:6; Acts 9:11; 10:32); the place where they lived or lodged. From the start there was “breaking bread from house to house” (Greek idiom not being ‘in’ but ‘according to house’: katV oi=kon/kat’ oikov) Acts 2:46. Paul sends greetings to Priscilla and Aquila and to the ecclesia according to their house (Rom 16:5; also 1 Cor 16:19). This idiom is also used of an ecclesia associated with the house-home of Nymphas (Col 4:15), and Archippus (Phm 1:2). Meeting in a home-house, rather than a building not of that purpose, would directly connect with theme of ‘the house of God’ (e.g. 1 Tim 3:15; Heb 3:6; 10:21), where God dwells: ‘In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit’ (Eph 2:22).
[17] Reference should be made to the case of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25. She manifests submission to the man David, by her repeated use of ‘my lord’, and the text avoids saying she ‘taught’ David in saying what she did. In fact, it records David saying to her: “…blessed be thy advice” (1 Sam 25:33). ‘Advice’ derives from a Hebrew word for ‘taste’ which extends to ‘behaviour’, as in the title of Psalm 34, and also Ps 34:8 (9 MT).
[18] Luke 2:36 mentions “one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser.” Also, there is an account in Acts 21:8-9 of Philip the evangelist (one of ‘the seven’, Acts 6:5) having four daughters, virgins, who prophesied. Following the Greek text, the NKJV of 1 Cor 12:7 and 12:11 replaces KJV’s ‘man’ with ‘each one’―“But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all”―as the statements are not male-gender exclusive.
[19] Perhaps the “Song of songs” would be a particular spiritual song sang? It is about love and the beloved (e.g. my beloved, my sister spouse, friends, eat, drink).
[20] The scriptural symbolic reason for wearing a ‘head-covering’ at the breaking of bread is not distinguished where sisters are expected to wear hats (no longer a symbolic ‘head covering’) at non-breaking of bread meetings. Indeed, this insistence or formal meetings’ habit encourages a lack of awareness about the role of the ‘head-covering’, and reduces it to a mere human ritual.
What would be the scriptural justification, chapter and verse, for a sister wearing a hat (as if a head-covering) at a preaching function (e.g. whether a seminar or a traditional public lecture; a Victorian or chapel relic)? Public prayer and singing hymns, particularly with (hoped-for) unconverted visitors associated with such a “witness” seems somewhat removed from Peter preaching to his Jewish brethren (Acts 2:22-29: ‘Ye men of Israel…Men, brethren’) on Pentecost!
Would Priscilla have worn a head-covering when she and husband Aquila ‘[they] took [Apollos] unto them, and [they] expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly’ (Acts 18:26)? What would be the symbolic point? She was speaking, cooperating in this with Aquila; this was certainly not ‘in ecclesia’.
[21] I have only hinted at ‘Lord’ usage in relation to holy women addressing their representative messianic-man, and could add Sarah with Abraham (1 Pet 3:6) to Abigail with David (1 Sam 25:24, 25, 25, 26, 26, 27, 27, 28, 28, 29, 30, 31, 31, 31, 41). I hope, if God wills, to treat some thematic features of this sort within the scope of Biblical usage of ‘Lord’ on another occasion.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One