Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

From the following article while J.H. Waggoner was resident editor, we find this sentence: "A woman may pray, prophesy, exhort, and comfort the church, but she cannot occupy the position of a pastor or a ruling elder."

Woman's Place in the Gospel.

We find two questions upon our table which are so nearly related that we answer them together.

1. "Is there any evidence that women may not partake of the Lord's supper?"

We give this as we received it. We should more naturally inquire, Is there any evidence that women may partake of the Lord's supper?

There is no special or explicit statement to that effect. Nor is there any explicit statement that minors may partake of the Lord's supper. But there is evidence that it was the duty of the apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, and to teach them that believed the gospel to observe certain things that were commanded them. And there is direct evidence that whosoever believes in Christ, or is a Christian, may partake of the Lord's supper. The conclusion is, then, evident that women and minors may partake of the Lord's supper, unless it can be shown that women and minors may not believe and obey the gospel. As no one would affirm this, the question is settled beyond dispute.

There is another method of arriving at the same conclusion, and one which involves important considerations. The ordinance of circumcision was given to the patriarchs and to Israel which, from its very nature, must be confined to male children. By birth the male children of Jewish parents were entitled to the privileges of this rite, which was the seal of the covenant. Others might obtain it by complying with certain conditions. But no others were entitled to it by their birth.

Circumcision has its antitype. It is now of the heart; it is the Spirit of God in the heart. "Ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." As their circumcision proved their relation to Abraham in that covenant, so does ours, the possession of the Spirit, prove our relation to Christ. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his."

The promise made to Abraham is yet waiting for fulfillment. Stephen proved that it remains to be fulfilled. Paul, both in Acts 27, and Heb. 6 and 11, showed that the promise made of God to the fathers was the foundation of his hope. "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:29. Not by birth or national distinctions, not by a sign which the males only could receive, but by faith—by a rule where "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." Gal. 3:28. This proves that the privileges of one class are the privileges of each and every class, unless there are specific restrictions. But no such exist in regard to the Lord's supper. Hence, females, Gentiles, bondsmen, all who accept Christ and have his Spirit may alike partake of this privilege. And this leads to the next question, and to consider how far restrictions extend on another point.

2. "Is it right for women to speak in meeting?" Certain texts are quoted to prove the negative, and, apparently, they do prove it. Do they really?

A text of scripture may not be taken in all its possible meanings, but only in its actual meaning. This is obvious; for it is often possible to draw from a text that which may be shown to be foreign to the actual intention of the writer. We are not at liberty to draw a meaning from any text which makes it conflict with any other text, and especially of the same writer. And, secondly, we may not draw a meaning from a text which puts it in contradiction with a known fact.

In 1 Cor. 11: 6, Paul says: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head." Again in chapter 14:3 he says, "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." But if women were never to "speak unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort," why did he say
they should not speak thus or prophesy with uncovered heads? Why give a direction as to the manner in which they were to exhort, or comfort, or edify the brethren, if he meant to forbid it altogether? Granted that it is quite possible to draw such a meaning from his words in chapter 14, and to Timothy, can that be the actual meaning, seeing it is entirely inconsistent with his directions in the text noticed? It cannot be that he intended to utterly forbid in one text that which he allows in another text.

We notice, then the connection of the two texts which seem to involve a difficulty.

1 Cor. 14:29-35. "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 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. 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."

It appears that something, or speaking of some kind, was herein permitted to the men which was not permitted to the women. But we have seen, and shall notice further, that they were allowed to pray and to prophesy, but under certain restrictions. We cannot allow that this text contradicts that. If this text is likewise restrictive—if it permits certain exercises or, perhaps, disputations, to the men which it prohibits to the women, then there is no conflict between the two. Dr. Clarke gives us the following information: "It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating, in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, &c., in the synagogue, but this liberty was not allowed to any woman."

Such being the custom of the times, the propriety of the order will at once be seen, for it would be unseemly for a women to engage in such a debate of words as was likely to occur. Paul was specially guarding against confusion. But this would not interfere with the permission to women to pray or to prophesy, if it were done to edification and comfort, and if the decorum which belongs to the place and occasion were preserved, and the women regarded that modest reserve which is such an adornment of the sex.

And this appears yet more evident from the explanatory declaration in his words to Timothy, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Tim. 2:2. The divine arrangement, even from the beginning, is this, that the man is the head of the woman. Every relation is disregarded or abused in this lawless age. But the Scriptures always maintain this order in the family relation. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." Eph. 5:23. Man is entitled to certain privileges which are not given to woman; and he is subjected to some duties, and burdens from which the woman is exempt. A woman may pray, prophesy, exhort, and comfort the church, but she cannot occupy the position of a pastor or a ruling elder. This would be looked upon as usurping authority over the man, which is here prohibited.

Thus it appears from a harmony of Paul's words that his orders were restrictive, but not prohibitory. He certainly did not prohibit that which he plainly permitted.

More conclusive than this, if possible, is this, that to construe his language into a prohibition is to bring him in conflict with known and acknowledged facts. Woman's relation to the work of God has not materially changed throughout the dispensations. Miriam, the sister of Aaron and Moses, was a prophetess. In all instances recorded in the Old Testament it appears that God called women to this important office when the condition of the people was especially trying, or in time of great declension or disaster. We should naturally suppose that individuals of the stronger sex would uniformly be chosen at such a time, but God does not see as man sees. Those women whom the Lord chose to occupy this important place, have shown themselves peculiarly fitted to fill it, and often even in striking contrast with public men of their own time.

The children of Israel were "mightily oppressed;" "they chose new gods;" war was in their gates, though there was not a shield or spear seen among forty thousands in Israel. Judges 4:34; 5:7, 8. Then Deborah was raised up, who was not only a prophetess, but a judge in Israel. Barak, whose name was handed down by Paul (Heb. 11), among those of the faithful worthies, refused to go out to meet the hosts of Sisera unless Deborah went with him; so strong was his confidence in the
Lord's appointment.

When the house of God was in desolation, and the law had ceased in Israel, Huldah was found a prophetess. King Josiah sought unto her for instruction, to learn how they might avert the wrath of God which was kindled against Israel.

At the time of the birth of our Saviour Anna was a prophetess, and she "spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Israel." Luke 2:36-38.

Did the change of dispensation work any change in the divine plan in respect to this gift? Not to its withdrawal; but it insured that the bestowal of the gift should be still more general. The promise was made thus:— "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." "And on my servants and on my handmaidens will I pour out in those days of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy."

The fulfillment was according to the promise. There were four prophetesses in one family—that of Philip. They had the gift, and they exercised it—they "did prophesy." Some would now put such a construction upon the words of Paul as to have closed the mouths of these handmaidens of the Lord, who were specially endowed by his Spirit. But Paul gave no sanction to such a construction; so far from forbidding the exercise of this gift by women, he pointed out how they should appear when they prophesied. Paul was not so presumptuous as to interfere with the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, or to frustrate the gifts and callings of God in the gospel.

If this is not proof that Paul did not intend to forbid women taking part in public worship, then we must confess that we are slow to comprehend proof.

Neither do the words of Paul confine the labors of women to the act of prophesying alone. He refers to prayers, and also speaks of certain women who "labored in the Lord," an expression which could only refer to the work of the gospel. He also, in remarking on the work of the prophets, speaks of edification, exhortation, and comfort. This "labor in the Lord," with prayer, comprises all the duties of public worship. Not all the duties of business meetings, which were probably conducted by men, or all the duties of ruling elders, and pastors, compare 1 Tim. 5:17, with 2:12, but all that pertain to exercises purely religious. We sincerely believe that, according to the Scriptures, women, as a right may, and as a duty ought to, engage in these exercises.

[Artiste]

Very interesting, and it's a long ways from debating as to whether women can even take communion to saying that they have the right to be ordained and even act as conference presidents.

[Johann]

J. H. Waggoner had not yet read where Ellen White states that certain women were to be ordained as "evangelists".  That came 7 years later.

[Dedication]

Cultural or Principle?

1 Cor. 14:29-35. "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 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. 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."

2. "Is it right for women to speak in meeting?"

The obvious meaning an unbiased reader would understand from the text is:
women shouldn't speak in church.

However, Waggonner now gives his reasons why he thinks the obvious meaning isn't the meaning.

Suggesting the obvious meaning is "shown to be foreign to the actual intention of the writer".
Suggesting the obvious meaning  is in "conflict with any other text, and especially of the same writer,"  and that" it puts in contradiction with a known fact."

But are those assumptions correct?   Did Paul really not mean what he said?

Waggonner explains

In 1 Cor. 11: 6, Paul says: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head." Again in chapter 14:3 he says, "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." But if women were never to "speak unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort," why did he say
they should not speak thus or prophesy with uncovered heads? Why give a direction as to the manner in which they were to exhort, or comfort, or edify the brethren, if he meant to forbid it altogether? Granted that it is quite possible to draw such a meaning from his words in chapter 14, and to Timothy, can that be the actual meaning, seeing it is entirely inconsistent with his directions in the text noticed? It cannot be that he intended to utterly forbid in one text that which he allows in another text.

Let's think about this a bit --
Paul clearly stated he does not allow women to talk in church.  IN CHURCH is mention twice.

Then Waggonner assumes 1 Cor. 11 is also talking about "in church" but Paul NEVER mentioned " in church" in those verses.
In the last verses of chapter 10 he explains that he tries not to offend anyone.  He is clearly culturally sensitive not to do anything that would distract from his mission of bring people to Christ and salvation.   

Paul says he does not allow women to speak in church.
is he now saying that he does allow women to speak in church?
No -- he isn't talking about "in church".

It's ASSUMED that they prophesied in church , but women may very well have gone out into the neighborhood and witnessed and prayed with others.
Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness,...(4)That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, (5)   [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. 



Paul is clearly saying here that when "prophesying" is taking place in the church, for comfort and learning the women are to be silent!

1 Cor. 14:29-35. "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 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. 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."

Waggonner tries to explain it by saying:
It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, &c., in the synagogue, but this liberty was not allowed to any woman."
Is "prophesying" now asking questions, objecting, etc.?
"they may all prophecy one by one" --  that all may learn and be comforted. 
But women are to be silent!

So does that agree with what Waggoner is saying:

Such being the custom of the times, the propriety of the order will at once be seen, for it would be unseemly for a women to engage in such a debate of words as was likely to occur. Paul was specially guarding against confusion. But this would not interfere with the permission to women to pray or to prophesy, if it were done to edification and comfort, and if the decorum which belongs to the place and occasion were preserved, and the women regarded that modest reserve which is such an adornment of the sex.

Wait a second -- didn't we just read that the prophesying in the church was for comfort and learning, but women were to silent.   How can we switch now and say women could talk and prophecy in church as long as they were 'edifying and comforting" the church.


And this appears yet more evident from the explanatory declaration in his words to Timothy,
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Tim. 2:2.

What people have done is to declare these verses unrelated to culture.  The verses are bent into almost unrecognizable shapes to give women the right to teach and preach.

Either Paul was addressing the culture of his day and not allowing things to be done that would be considered a "disgrace" in his culture -- or the Adventist church has LONG AGO "rebelled" against scripture on this point.   
Paul's  objective was that nothing was to be done that would aggravate suspicion, or give cause for malicious slander.

[Dedication]

But now we can ask -- how does this relate to our culture?

Obviously it is no longer considered a disgrace for women to talk in church.   Women now lead out in all the children's divisions,  teach adult Sabbath school lessons and even preach in church.
 (As well as many other church duties)

But having said that -- culture still has one big problem.

Religion, by many men, is not seen as something "real men" do.  It's just for women and children, they will reason.   From childhood men were taught by women in church.  This reinforces the idea that religion is just for women and children and the weak, wimpy men.
Church membership tends to have many more women than men.
Would this negative concept be increased by women taking up ALL the positions in church -- from cradle roll leader to elder and pastor?

Godly men, dedicated to serving the Lord are definitely needed in leadership positions.


         

[Bob Pickle]

Ulicia,

What do you think Paul meant by "in church"? Is there any evidence that that phrase would mean in a church service when used in Paul's writings?

You suggest that women praying and prophesying might be in the neighborhood rather than during a service. Would this go contrary to Paul's instruction that tongues were a sign for believers, not unbelievers?

Waggoner's explanation seems to have been the standard one used by our pioneers. Doesn't mean it's right, but it was the standard view.

[Dedication]

I realize it was the standard view.
The thing is -- early Adventists faced a problem that they tried to find answers for.

I talked with some Baptists once who really were quite blunt in telling me i was following a cult because Ellen White, a woman, had so much authority in the church, she went about preaching and telling men what to do, while leaving her kids with others to look after which was contrary to the teachings of scripture.

I'm sure the Adventists in the early days faced the same criticism from their Christian neighbors in their day.

They HAD to explain Paul's writings differently from what a plain reading gave, and how other Christians interpreted it.
And quite frankly I find it is departing from what the scriptures actually say.
It seems to me it would be easier to recognize the "silence" command as cultural rather than try to manipulate the plain meaning of the text.



Anyway--  you asked:

What does Paul mean by "in church".
I see it as meaning when the believers come together for worship.  "when ye come together,"
They didn't have church buildings such as we have now, but they would meet in designated areas for "church" worship.
 
The tongues issue --
Paul is addressing this issue for both in and out of church here as well.

"14:19   Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that  I might teach others

Talking in tongues is not for the believers

14:22   Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:

So it's not something he recommends to be done in church, he is discouraging it as a church activity and telling them they better have an interpreter  and if there is none to be silent, and even when there is an interpreter they need to take turns, not speak at once.

When is it a sign for unbelievers?
Obviously not in church because Paul directly says anyone coming into the church and hearing tongues would simply think them mad.
So the tongues would be a sign outside the church -- I think of the day of Penticost when the apostles spoke in tongues and every person heard in their own language.
 

[Bob Pickle]

Anyway--  you asked:

What does Paul mean by "in church".
I see it as meaning when the believers come together for worship.  "when ye come together,"
They didn't have church buildings such as we have now, but they would meet in designated areas for "church" worship.

We use the word "church" to refer to (a) a denomination, (b) a local congregation, (c) a building where a congregation meets, and (d) a worship service. I am proposing that ekklesia in Paul's writings does not mean a worship service, and that therefore "in church" must be understood to mean "within the congregation," and that suggests to me some sort of position of authority.

But I am open to seeing Bible verses where "church" is used to refer to a worship service.
 

The tongues issue --

...

So the tongues would be a sign outside the church -- I think of the day of Penticost when the apostles spoke in tongues and every person heard in their own language.

The opposite should also be true: If tongues are primarily for outside the church, then prophecy should primarily be for inside the church. And thus 1 Cor. 11's praying and prophesying women should have something to do with the church and/or worship services.

[Dedication]

We use the word "church" to refer to (a) a denomination, (b) a local congregation, (c) a building where a congregation meets, and (d) a worship service. I am proposing that ekklesia in Paul's writings does not mean a worship service, and that therefore "in church" must be understood to mean "within the congregation," and that suggests to me some sort of position of authority.
But I am open to seeing Bible verses where "church" is used to refer to a worship service.

Why would "ekklesia" mean "authority" -- I really don't see it used as "authority" in the texts I have read.
I realize English words that sound like "ekklesia"  are used in that sense, thus the sound of the word invokes the idea of "authority",   but that doesn't mean it had that meaning or that  Paul had "authority" in mind when he wrote the word.

"Ekklesia" can mean an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting.
The KJV translates  ekklesia three times as assembly.
Just like our word "church" ekklesia can be used in different ways.   

In fact reading all the texts using the word, it is very much like our understanding of the word "church", with the possible exception of "church" meaning an actual building.

So basically one has to see how the word is used in the context in which it is used.
And since we are discussing 1 Cor. 11-14 that is the context to look in.

1 Cor. 11:18  "For first of all, when ye come together in the church,  I hear there are divisions...
11:20 "When ye come together therefore into one place,  [don't make the Lord's supper into a party]
11:22 "have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God?

So here we see the believers coming together in the church  (assembled for worship) and to partake of the Lord's Supper, but needing firm counsel on how to partake of the Lord's Supper.

1 Cor. 14: 18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
1 Cor. 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding,

So when he's in with the believers who have come together Paul speaks in the language all understanding.

1 Cor. 14:23 "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in[those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that you are mad?

This whole chapter is talking about how to behave when they come together.

1 Cor. 14:26 "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Seems like they had quite a spontaneous worship style, everyone sharing, but there was no organization, and the result was bedlam.   Paul gives specific direction as to how order is to restored.   

14:22   Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:
So the tongues would be a sign [for unbelievers] outside the church -- I think of the day of Penticost when the apostles spoke in tongues and every person heard in their own language.

The opposite should also be true: If tongues are primarily for outside the church, then prophecy should primarily be for inside the church. And thus 1 Cor. 11's praying and prophesying women should have something to do with the church and/or worship services.

Why would the opposite be true?   
This isn't an either or situation.
I don't think one makes the other an "opposite".
Praying and prophesying is to be done when the church meets together for worship,
AND when the members go about their daily duties, witnessing to their neighbors as well as following their own private prayer life.

From what I understand from history, the cultural norm was that women were NOT to talk or lead out when believers met together for worship.

[Bob Pickle]

We use the word "church" to refer to (a) a denomination, (b) a local congregation, (c) a building where a congregation meets, and (d) a worship service. I am proposing that ekklesia in Paul's writings does not mean a worship service, and that therefore "in church" must be understood to mean "within the congregation," and that suggests to me some sort of position of authority.
But I am open to seeing Bible verses where "church" is used to refer to a worship service.

Why would "ekklesia" mean "authority" -- I really don't see it used as "authority" in the texts I have read.

My apologies that my thought wasn't clearer. I didn't mean that ekklesia meant "authority." I meant that speaking in the ekklesia referred to some sort of speaking with authority.

1 Cor. 11:18  "For first of all, when ye come together in the church,  I hear there are divisions...
11:20 "When ye come together therefore into one place,  [don't make the Lord's supper into a party]
11:22 "have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God?

So here we see the believers coming together in the church  (assembled for worship) and to partake of the Lord's Supper, but needing firm counsel on how to partake of the Lord's Supper.

That does seem to be the example I was asking for. What do you think that "in the churches" in 1 Cor. 14:34 is referring to? Do you think it means "worship services" in the plural?

The opposite should also be true: If tongues are primarily for outside the church, then prophecy should primarily be for inside the church. And thus 1 Cor. 11's praying and prophesying women should have something to do with the church and/or worship services.

Why would the opposite be true?   
This isn't an either or situation.
I don't think one makes the other an "opposite".
Praying and prophesying is to be done when the church meets together for worship,
AND when the members go about their daily duties, witnessing to their neighbors as well as following their own private prayer life.

If prophecy is for believers, not unbelievers, it's not really for the neighbors according to 1 Cor. 14, right? My thought thus far has been that since tongues is a sign for unbelievers, not believers, it isn't for the worship service, and since prophecy is a sign for believers, not unbelievers, it is for the worship service.

[Murcielago]

We use the word "church" to refer to (a) a denomination, (b) a local congregation, (c) a building where a congregation meets, and (d) a worship service. I am proposing that ekklesia in Paul's writings does not mean a worship service, and that therefore "in church" must be understood to mean "within the congregation," and that suggests to me some sort of position of authority.
But I am open to seeing Bible verses where "church" is used to refer to a worship service.

Why would "ekklesia" mean "authority" -- I really don't see it used as "authority" in the texts I have read.

My apologies that my thought wasn't clearer. I didn't mean that ekklesia meant "authority." I meant that speaking in the ekklesia referred to some sort of speaking with authority.

1 Cor. 11:18  "For first of all, when ye come together in the church,  I hear there are divisions...
11:20 "When ye come together therefore into one place,  [don't make the Lord's supper into a party]
11:22 "have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God?

So here we see the believers coming together in the church  (assembled for worship) and to partake of the Lord's Supper, but needing firm counsel on how to partake of the Lord's Supper.

That does seem to be the example I was asking for. What do you think that "in the churches" in 1 Cor. 14:34 is referring to? Do you think it means "worship services" in the plural?

The opposite should also be true: If tongues are primarily for outside the church, then prophecy should primarily be for inside the church. And thus 1 Cor. 11's praying and prophesying women should have something to do with the church and/or worship services.

Why would the opposite be true?   
This isn't an either or situation.
I don't think one makes the other an "opposite".
Praying and prophesying is to be done when the church meets together for worship,
AND when the members go about their daily duties, witnessing to their neighbors as well as following their own private prayer life.

If prophecy is for believers, not unbelievers, it's not really for the neighbors according to 1 Cor. 14, right? My thought thus far has been that since tongues is a sign for unbelievers, not believers, it isn't for the worship service, and since prophecy is a sign for believers, not unbelievers, it is for the worship service.

Prophecy is only for believers?

[Dedication]

Prophecy is for believers definitely, AND AND
AND it is a key to witnessing to people outside the church.

[Dedication]

"What do you think that "in the churches" in 1 Cor. 14:34 is referring to? Do you think it means "worship services" in the plural?"


What does John mean when he writes to seven churches.
It means seven different congregations.
Same with Paul....

[Bob Pickle]

"What do you think that "in the churches" in 1 Cor. 14:34 is referring to? Do you think it means "worship services" in the plural?"


What does John mean when he writes to seven churches.
It means seven different congregations.
Same with Paul....

Then if "in the churches" means "in the congregations," "in the church" must mean "in the congregation," not "in the worship service." And that leaves us with the possibility that speaking "in the church" might refer to speaking with authority, not simply saying something.

1 Corinthians 14:34  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.

1 Corinthians 14:35  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.

"In the churches" and "in the church" should mean the same thing, should they not?

[Dedication]

Does it in English?

The word has much the same variatiations as the English word "church".
Covering the whole spectrum of congregations that meet together for worship.
When we read 1 Cor. 14 Paul is talking about how to conduct oneself in the worship service  (in church) is he not?
--don't treat the Lord's Supper like a party
--do the psalms readings, and prophecying etc in a decent orderly fashion
--those who speak in a different language should have an interpreter so the congregation and visitors can gain benefit from it.

Isn't it how the word is actually being used in the context of the message in which it is found that determines what is meant by it.
I'm not sure we can lift out the phrase from the context and apply to it what it "could mean" appart from the context.

We say-- there are seven churches in that district
We say -- the church has one foundation, which is Christ
We say -- people need to be reverent in church

The context gives the meaning to word.

Same with the Greek word.